# Traditional or MMA preference



## A.R.K. (Jul 25, 2003)

I thought it might be interesting to begin a poll on members preferences in training.

For purposes of the poll I would offer the following definitions;

*Traditonal* 

An older, established discipline that strictly adheres to techniques and training practices as previously set forth and passed down unchanged from generation to generation.  Of course there will probably be slight alterations from time to time but in essence it is distinguished based on it's history.

*MMA* 

A discipline probably having it's foundation in large part on a traditional style/system, but has since branched out.  Utilizing concepts and techniqiues from other disciplines to reinforce or replace one's associated with the foundational structure.

These definitions are not absolutes of course.  If you would like to add to, delete from, or offer and alternate definition please do so.

Thanks for participating.

:asian:


----------



## James Kovacich (Jul 25, 2003)

MMA training can help complete any system whether they beleive their system needs it or not.

:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 25, 2003)

Uh...I don't agree with this division, and I'm dyin' to know exactly what, "complete," means.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jul 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Uh...I don't agree with this division, and I'm dyin' to know exactly what, "complete," means. *



What division are you talking about?

For the most part (from my view) there are traditional arts that adhere strictly to their traditional format and there are many arts that have branched out and cross train and follow a more modern format.

If I go to train with my Sensei, then yes I bow when I enter the Dojo and before stepping on and off the mat. When I teach my art, no I do not bow on and off the mat.

Now, since your dying to hear exactly what "complete" is. "Completing our systems" can be very differant for all of us. Some will think that they are already complete. Thats find for them.

Assuming that we are both Instructors and if you can throw something at me that I do not understand, do not know how to counter, then my training "may not" be complete.

From my experience most Instructors will argue that their systems are complete and that "we" just need to put more time in our arts.

That dosen't go over well with me because self defense needs to be practical, to the point and we don't have a lifetime to become proficient. Yes it takes a lifetime on our "journeys" but no we shouldn't have to wait to be able to defend ourselves and our loved ones.

So (for me) to be complete. From Karate I went to Jun Fan Gung-Fu and my hands became much better, more practical. At the same time I trained a couple of days a week at a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu  school for 3.5 years. 

In the beginning I wanted to know in my head that I would not get beat when someone "overwhelms" me and slams me to the pavement. That was something that "ALL" of my instructors dating back to 1973 overlooked.

They would say, well I'll do this or I'll do that. But I beleive that "we" have to get on the mat and learn some grappling first hand if "we" are going to be able to stop that grappler from taking us down. We need to have an "understanding" of other areas that are not our expertise to be complete.

Just saying well I'll shift my body weight and..... dosen't get it. 

Well you got my definition of "complete." 

Whats yours?

:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 25, 2003)

Empiricism isn't a good answer, I think.

I'm asking--since you and others keep insisting that one's art must be, "complete," what exactly, "complete," means to you. 

Further, in at least one sense there are no "modern," arts. What defines "modern," for you, precisely?

In point of fact, it is virtually inevitable that any well-trained martial artist will be able to come up with something that you--and certainly, me--cannot counter.

And just to make my premises clear, what bothers me about these discussions is indeed the equation of the words, "grappling," and "Brazilian jiu-jitsu," with words such as "complete," and, "modern."

Thanks.


----------



## MJS (Jul 26, 2003)

A possible defination of complete-  To have a good understanding of all ranges of combat.  To be as prepared as possible for any situation that you might come across.  Granted, there will be no way to tell if in 2 yrs, you will find yourself in a hostage situation, and thinking to yourself, "Holy s***, I dont know what you do cuz I never trained for this!"  But, if you put yourself into as many real life senarios as possible, you might stand a better chance of surviving.

Tradition-  Pretty well sumed up in the first post.

Modern- Something that has changed with the times.  Learning a new idea or concept to improve your base art.

You certainly can't expect to defend yourself against something if you have never seen it.  Do a gun disarm with a water gun.  At least you will know if you got shot.  A knife disarm with a marker or chalk.  At least you'll know if you got cut.  How the hell can you defend against a grappler, if you never train with one?  BJJ is not the end all- be all of SD, but it is a piece that you need to complete the puzzle.

You can sit there and say, "Well, when the grappler shoots in I'll just hit him with a downward elbow and the fight will be over."  If that was the case, then why hasnt it been done?  Against a skilled grappler, you won't have time to get that shot off, and even if you do, it won't have that much power, because you'll already be going to the ground.  Shouldn't you have an understanding how to counter the takedown?

I have yet to see a totally complete art.  If anything, I'd have to say that JKD is probably the most complete, because of the fact that they address all ranges of combat.  Nobody has even said to totally abandon your base art, but instead to 'get a taste' of what else is out there.

Why should we have to sit and wait and think, "Well, maybe if I wait 20yrs, this will be addressed in the art I"m taking?"  Akja said that in his post and I agree 100% with that.

Mike


----------



## twinkletoes (Jul 26, 2003)

MMA is based upon having a functional game in all 3 "ranges":  Standing, Clinch, Ground.  

Standing should include a solid knowledge of striking and defenses.  (simple enough)

Clinch should include controls/tie-ups, attached and unattached hitting, and takedowns/defenses.

Ground work needs an understanding of leverage and control, as well as opportunities and methods of striking, choking, locking, and escaping.  

MMA favors skill development over rank.  It is geared towards raising personal performance in lieu of fulfilling requirements.  It tends to avoid uniforms, belts, titles, rituals, and hierarchies in favor of an athletic-coaching model of classroom behavior, endeavor, and instruction.  Because of this, it favors molding each athlete's training towards making that individual functional in each range, rather than imparting a standard and uniform curriculum to every member.  


There is a way to tell if you study TMA or MMA.  It works like this:

Go through every single detail in your curriculum.  Ask yourself of each component, "Why do I do it like this?"  

If you are in MMA, the answer is always "because that is the way that works best, because of......"

If you find something in the curriculum to which your answer is "because that's the way I learned it" or "that's the way my teacher said to do it" then Congratulations!  You practice a TMA!  

Let's look at a couple examples:

Why do you punch like that?

1)  Because it works in the ring.
2)  Because it is the most biomechanically sound way.
3)  Because it imparts the greatest force.
4)  Because it's the way I learned it.

So far so good?  No TMA'ers?

Why do you practice that combination?

1)  Because it helps me practice loading my weight on one side, then the other.
2)  Because I use it in the ring all the time.
3)  Because it knocked my last opponent out.
4)  Because it's in the curriculum that way.

Maybe not yet?  Ok...

Why do you practice that form or prearranged technique like that?

1)  I don't practice forms.
2)  I don't practice prearranged techniques.
3)  I only practice with resisting opponents, once I have the mechanics down.
4)  It's a part of the curriculum.

If you answered 4 to ANY of the above, or other questions like them, you practice a TMA.  I don't say this to knock TMA, but to point out the difference.  That's why it's called "traditional."  

Note:  You might list 100 of these questions, and only answer like that to 1 of them.  That still makes it a TMA!  MMA is what happens when you cannot answer a single question that way!

~TT

PS - I'm sure I will get objections.  They will start like this: "I have a legitimate explanation for all of the things I do...."  That's fine.  I understand.  I am not knocking you for knowing what you are doing.  I am not knocking anyone.  People wanted a distinction.  That is the distinction.  I will add a stipulation:  To be MMA, you must test your art in an environment with as few rules as possible, in order to test and refine your methods.  

I will get others who say "If MMA isn't based on what you learned from your instructor, why is it the specific things you said above?"  The reason is because it is under constant revision through testing.  It is constantly forced back to the drawing board.  My definition at the top is the current draft of MMA.  If someone finds a more effective way to lock an arm, it will be adopted.  If someone finds that there is a completely new range, or method, or something, then it will be tested.  If it is functional, it will be adopted, and without sentimentality for the old way.


----------



## MJS (Jul 26, 2003)

Right On!!!! 

MJS


----------



## Elfan (Jul 26, 2003)

:deadhorse


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 26, 2003)

Sorry, no. 

The fundamental bases of your claim remain unsound, based as they all are upon this, "the ring," business. Ya wanna train for the ring, mazeltov. I don't, and neither do most...

More importantly, I reject the structure you've imposed on the discussion. It isn't accurate, and it isn't adequate.

Among other things, I guarantee that there are lots of places in your own training in which you violate the very rules of the game that you've given as essential.

And gutting martial arts in the pursuit of some dream of perfect completeness and efficiency...well, I'vee already posted enough on this.


----------



## MJS (Jul 26, 2003)

Oh boy--I can already see where this is gonna go.  Just because the mention of MMA comes into the discussion, does not mean we are talking about he rign here folks.  A clinch applies to the street just as it would in the ring.  It makes no difference.  You can alreayd see the one way thinking going on here.  People think "Well, my Inst has never had to get into a clinch so neither will I"  Well, you know what, you will never be your Inst. because we are all one of a kind.  You can try to act and model them, but you will never be them.  What works for you mightn ot work for them.

In regards to his training. Well, I happen to know Chris and also train with him.  I can guarentee that he violates none of the mentioned things.  

I hate to say the word again, but its probably the best that comes to mind.  You are closed minded at ANYTHING that is not Kenpo.  I assuming that you have never trained outside of it and that is why you impose such a NEGATIVE repsonse to anything not related to Kenpo.  Change is a part of everyday life.  There are always new and improved ways of doing things.  Body styles of cars change, new cures for an illness come out, a new clothing design, etc.  Like it or not Rob, and I can see that you don't, but change happens.  If you want to stay in the dust, while everybody else moves forward, then go right ahead.  When it comes down to SD, I guess that will be the true test as to who has the better, updated material.

Furthermore, nobody has said that you have to abandon your current training and learn something new.  But, what is wrong with adding in something to make your current art better.  Oh, I forgot, you art is already the best, right?

MJS


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 26, 2003)

Yes, well, that sort of response is precisely what's wrong with the whole approach.

First off, I was responding to the repeated mention of, "the ring," in the previous post. nearly all the "questions"--actually statements--made reference to ring efficacy. Please read them.

Second off, please show me where I've written anything vaguely resembling an assertion that my art alone was the best. That's apparently your dream, not mine.

Third off, why in the world do you expect anybody to actually discuss the issues with you, when you repeatedly claim that anybody who disagrees with you, "will be left in the dust," when you repeatedly throw cliches such as, "change happens," at them rather than discussing anything?

Fourth off, and one last time--the binary oppossition you've forced upon this issue is fundamentally inadequate to the reality you claim to describe.

I see that I'm about the only person not in your circle who's responding to any of these threads. I think I'll follow the wise example of the silent, and leave you to it.


----------



## MJS (Jul 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Yes, well, that sort of response is precisely what's wrong with the whole approach.
> 
> First off, I was responding to the repeated mention of, "the ring," in the previous post. nearly all the "questions"--actually statements--made reference to ring efficacy. Please read them.
> ...



I'll reply from top to bottom.

1-  Yes, the post was talking about applying these things in the ring, but they do also apply to the street as well.

2- Regarding your art to be the best.  I'm taking your comments of, "Why study anything else when its already addressed in Kenpo?" as you saying just that.  Why study grappling when Kenpo addresses it?  Because it does not address it.

3-  LOL, thats a good one.  I'm always ready to have a friendly discussion and share and compare ideas and training methods.  You are the one that does not wish to because you dont think that the tradition should be changed.  Anytime someone talks about change, you take the defensive.

4-  What I've forced???  I have forced nothing.  I was not the starter of this thread, just a contributer.  There is nothing wrong with change.

5- My circle of friends.  It is just proof in the pudding Rob, that I am not alone when it comes to this type of thinking.  There are many people out there that have walked down the same road as I have and have seen and got a taste of what else is out there.  We have never once said that anybody should stop doing what they are doing and take up a new art.  All we are saying is to look at the way your base art is, look at other arts out there and their training methods, and maybe adapt something to your art.  That is all.

It has nothing to do with being silent.  Maybe these other people (the ones in my circle)are tired of hearing your negative words about change and dont feel like arguing with you anymore.  If you want, you dont have to participate in the discussion.  I'm not holding a gun to your head, forcing you to do anything.  If you want to stay in your circle of friends, you know, the ones that think change is not good, then that is fine too.  If your group chooses not to participate in the discussion, that is their choice.  Nothing wrong though with looking at all the options that you have available to you.

MJS


----------



## James Kovacich (Jul 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Yes, well, that sort of response is precisely what's wrong with the whole approach.
> 
> First off, I was responding to the repeated mention of, "the ring," in the previous post. nearly all the "questions"--actually statements--made reference to ring efficacy. Please read them.
> ...



When I speak, I speak of "my experiences." My "equation of the words grappling and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu" with the word "complete," is because "I" am primarily a stand up fighter. Common sense without even knowing me will tell you where my weaknesses may have been. It was my quest to fix them. Pretty simple there. 

And your final line that you've posted enough on this already. I don't think so! EVERYTHING you've stated was just "opinionized" and NOTHING was "factualized!"

I gave you my "definition" of complete for "me." But you failed to give me "your"  definition of complete for "you."

For the rest of you guys, good posts! I see that some of us walk similar paths.

:asian:


----------



## A.R.K. (Jul 26, 2003)

Some good posts here gentlemen, thank you for your contributions thus far.  

And Twinkletoes, that was an excellent post! :asian: 

The poll is 50/50 at this point....

My personal view is that a MMD [my new abbreviation for Mixed Martial Discipline which is more realistic  ] or realistic training in more than one discipline will better prepare you for a real world encounter.  

Works well in the military and LEO.


----------



## Mithios (Jul 26, 2003)

In my opinion a person should get a good solid base in a so called traditional system (black belt). And then move to mmd( i like that a.r.k. ) if they feel they need to.For myself i earned black belts in 2 styles before taking the mmd approach.


----------



## MJS (Jul 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Mithios _
> *In my opinion a person should get a good solid base in a so called traditional system (black belt). And then move to mmd( i like that a.r.k. ) if they feel they need to.For myself i earned black belts in 2 styles before taking the mmd approach. *



I agree.  Cross training is not for everybody.  I would not recommend it to someone who is a white belt.  They have enough to worry about learning and getting familiar with the other things, let alone having to worry about another system.  Of course, I'm also not saying that it is a requirement either.  It is an option.  If you feel that your system is complete, thats wonderful.  I have said many times already that we all train for different reasons.  Just because we talk about "reality", does not mean that we plan on jumping into the ring.  The street is as real as you are going to get.  Adding something to your art to help you be more prepared for the street is beneficial not harmful.

MJS


----------



## Mithios (Jul 27, 2003)

Your on the money MJS, as far as i am concerned. Most people don't want to come to terms that there system,style whatever ! Has holes in it . And lord have mercy if they have made it there so called lifes work. For some reason there martial art is tied up in there feelings about what other people think of them. And if they aknowledge(sp ?) it they are saying something about themselves.(Did i just say all that??). I have never seen one system that has it it all.Whether it is Karate,Kenpo,Tae Kwon-Do,jiujitsu etc.     MITHIOS


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Jul 27, 2003)

I study MMA, and voted for TMA.

Why?

I beleive in pragmatism, but respect lineage (when it's worth respecting).  I am like an orphan without a heavy foundation.

If you get "stuck" on your style, which is just as easy ("That's the way I was taught" or "I was taught it was because of this" -- same difference) in MMA, you'll never find your groove.

You can study TMA, and sometimes develop a deeper foundation for when you leave it behind for the real world.

It's like 99% of the New Age nonsense out there ... few of those people really know any of the disciplines they borrow from, and then mix yoga and chi kung in a blender and think they have something worth passing on.  On rare occassion they do, but it's ussually by accident and misleads future generations into thinking they have any clue what the deeper understandings of these things are.

TMA does not guarantee quality, and has drawback, yes, but MMA almost guarantees that every clown has his own style based on his limited "half-a-generation" expereience of what he thinks works.  

The few that work, such as Parker, Tegner, JKD, et alia, then almost become their own TMA over time, but with more openmindedness for evolution.  Truly nice in principle.  But again, the openmindedness is only as good as the wisdom of each generation, and it can easily degrade into a rejection of things that "don't work" because the understanding of them was lost.


----------



## 7starmantis (Jul 27, 2003)

Some systems are so inclusive that in order to be proficient in them it takes many many many years of hard training. Its like in the mantis system every time I think I know the limits of the system and its techniques my sifu shows me more and blows my mind. I would have to say TMA in this poll, but I don't think the division is correct here. I study Seven Star Preying Mantis Kung Fu, but yet some of our beginner forms we learn are Wah Lum. A few of my Sifu's sidai spent many years studying Eagle Claw and one Hung Gar, so we get to incorporate some of those systems as well in our learning. Is that MMA, I don't think so, I still view it as traditional. I guess I would say then that my traditional discipline would be Kung Fu and in that case, no I would not recommend cross training. There is so much in Kung Fu that I could study for the rest of my life and not even get close to learning it all.


----------



## MJS (Jul 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *I study Seven Star Preying Mantis Kung Fu, but yet some of our beginner forms we learn are Wah Lum. A few of my Sifu's sidai spent many years studying Eagle Claw and one Hung Gar, so we get to incorporate some of those systems as well in our learning. Is that MMA, I don't think so, I still view it as traditional. I guess I would say then that my traditional discipline would be Kung Fu and in that case, no I would not recommend cross training. There is so much in Kung Fu that I could study for the rest of my life and not even get close to learning it all. *



I know nothing about the Kung Fu styles that you are studying, so please feel free to explain further if needed.  If some of your Inst are studying Eagle Claw and another Hung Gar, and they are incorporating some of those tech. into your 7star Mantis system, isn't that in effect a way of crosstraining?  You are basically doing what I have been suggesting.  The only difference is, is that I take all the heat from it.  While you are not changing styles, you are in a way, adding things from other systems into your own.  I have said to take some principles of BJJ and add them to Kenpo, and people look at me like I have 2 heads.  I have never said to stop a base art and start another.  All I said was to take the ideas from the others and add them to your own bag.

MJS


----------



## James Kovacich (Jul 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski _
> *I study MMA, and voted for TMA.
> 
> Why?
> ...



Your blender theory.- 
The flaw in it is that MMA'ers are not labeling their art as a martial art, in line along with the traditional martial arts. Their art is theirs, not the TMA'ers and personally I see 19 yearolds coming up faster, more well rounded and overall better all around fighters and can kick the crap out of the average young black belt of the same age group. 

What you failed to address is who their instructors are and why do their instructors choose to teach this way. Martial arts originally was offense and defense fighting systems based on the times which evolved along with the times. 

These you fighters coming up are not alone in the world. They have great instructors who before them had great instructors. If that same 19 year old begins teaching and he only has 2 years teaching without the guidance of his instructors. Then yes, no matter how good of a fighter he is, his ability to pass on something of worth will be limited.

But that same 19 year old begins teaching on his own say around the age of 28, then you're analagy is false, in my opinion. As far their understanding, that comes with time, it evolves as does the arts. But the arts that aren't evolving along with the rest of the world will surely continue to do one thing, knock the arts that are evolving.

I'm not saying that all arts must change. We all have are base disciplines. Just be open to the possible additions to our arts while not losing the respect of our instructors. Most arts judge high ranks partially on the contributions to the art. 

Wouldn't a major contribution to our arts be the fact that we've addressed the issues of why the young fighters are more well rounded and overall better fighters at such a young age?

This is all just food for thought and isn't meant to step on anybodys feet in the least. I have a true example the will give a little lite to my thinking.

My brother in law is one of my former instructors. He is a pure traditionalist. Although is a former undefeated professional kickboxer and he is ranked in Karate, Judo/Jujutsu. Aikido, Kobujutsu and Kumiuchi under the late Tarow "Tai" Hayashi of El Paso, Texas. He has a great understanding of the arts and winning a fight.

I teach a few of my nephews and he's charted out his boys (one of them my Godson) martial future. A long story, short. By the time they are 18 or so, they will have a good foundation but they will learn each art separately (the way he teaches) without the advantage of knowing the similarities in the arts. He's named all the techniques that I am not to ever expose them to because he has that planned based on using their as aguide for when they will be exposed to what. 

He may prove me wrong but I feel that his boys too, will be behind (as a fighter).

Sorry about the rambling on. I'm just a firm beleiver of the evolution of ourselves as martial artists. I do teach and train traditional arts but my focus is based on my experiences and not on what I think a student should learn because he's to young.

In the long run, they will get it all. They just don't have to "eat all of their vegetables first to get to the meat and potatoes."

:asian:


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Jul 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *... We all have are base disciplines. ... *



Everything you say is true for the circumstances you are referring to -- I can't disagree with your views.  But just as some TMA schools lose touch with combat reality, your above quote is simply not true.

Many MMAs are belt collectors and nothing more.  They stay long enough to buy a black belt from one art, and get honorary belts for taking a frew lessons in other ones, then start their own RECOGNIZED form of karate.  I've seen this happen with the (late) owner of a local "Black Belt School of the Year".  This is bullsh*t.  Someone with a 4th degree will take someone with a half-dozen 1st degree black belts anyday.  In fact, his wife was just that and showed a lot more skill than he did.

However, there are people who after a year or two of MMA training can take on anyone less than a black belt in any system.  Not bragging, but I was one of those.  But could I take a 6th degree after training for years without a focused foundation in at least one art?  I don't know.  I just might get my but kicked.

I think maybe it's a learning curve issue.  Early on, TMA is at a disadvantage, then the reverse is true as the years of training go on (assuming the best and not worst of these schools).  I think it's about methodology more than technique.

But all we can shoot around is opinions and theory because every case is different, and we both probably have countless observations showing one way or the other.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jul 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski _
> *Everything you say is true for the circumstances you are referring to -- I can't disagree with your views.  But just as some TMA schools lose touch with combat reality, your above quote is simply not true.
> 
> Many MMAs are belt collectors and nothing more.  They stay long enough to buy a black belt from one art, and get honorary belts for taking a frew lessons in other ones, then start their own RECOGNIZED form of karate.  I've seen this happen with the (late) owner of a local "Black Belt School of the Year".  This is bullsh*t.  Someone with a 4th degree will take someone with a half-dozen 1st degree black belts anyday.  In fact, his wife was just that and showed a lot more skill than he did.
> ...



Good points. I don't think that  a 2 tear MMA'er is that much advanced over the young black belts, just more well rounded.

My brother in law is a 6th Dan and I'm a 5th Dan. He's in a well deserved position of high standing with no desire to promote any further. I don't see myself as his equal or even close. But I have evolved after walking my own path for many years.

I focus on what I believe is my truth in martial arts and I at the same time have 3 traditional instructors in 4 traitional martial arts. I too have taken on 2 more instructors in Escrima.

Hope to read more from you in hear!:asian:


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Jul 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *.... But I have evolved after walking my own path for many years.
> 
> I focus on what I believe is my truth in martial arts and I at the same time have 3 traditional instructors in 4 traitional martial arts. ... *



I totally respect that.

If you're ever in the Buffalo area, you are welcome to tea.

:asian: :asian:


----------



## J-kid (Jul 27, 2003)

MMA is the way of complete un-armed combat....


----------



## MJS (Jul 27, 2003)

In BJJ, there are half the belts in a regular art--white, blue, purple, brown, black.  I would put any amount of money on the BJJ guy that is a purple belt against a 1st or 2nd degree BB in any other style.  And the reason for this, is that they both train differently.  It makes no difference if one is a stand up art and the other is ground based.  The training is so much different between TMA and MMA.

MJS


----------



## DAC..florida (Jul 28, 2003)

I feel that one does need a solid base from a traditional style and should continue to train in that style, but adding some MMA training is always a compliment to any "traditional style".
:asian:


----------



## twinkletoes (Jul 28, 2003)

I agree that TMA'ers benefit tremendously from MMA training.


I think it's interesting that a couple of you have suggested that people should have a base in TMA before launching into MMA.  Can you articulate why you think that's necessary?  What makes that preferable to beginning in MMA from the start?  (I'm genuinely curious why you might say that).  

(I want to clarify that I mean before going into MMA, not before crosstraining in multiple TMA.  I understand why you should become proficient in one TMA before launching into another).


Also, those of you who feel that way, do you consider any of the following TMA?

Boxing, Kickboxing, Muay Thai, Judo, BJJ or San Shou?

Thanks,

~TT


----------



## James Kovacich (Jul 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by DAC..florida _
> *I feel that one does need a solid base from a traditional style and should continue to train in that style, but adding some MMA training is always a compliment to any "traditional style".
> :asian: *



Does the base really have to be from a traditioanal art?

How about the olympic wrestlers who are doing great as MMA'ers? How about a boxer making a transition to MMA's?

Those are sure not traditional martial arts. Some say they are martial arts but they are no way traditional.

:asian:


----------



## streetwise (Jul 28, 2003)

"If you find something in the curriculum to which your answer is "because that's the way I learned it" or "that's the way my teacher said to do it" then Congratulations! You practice a TMA! "


Well, by this definition...Congratulation! Most boxers, kickboxers, BJJ pratitioner, wrestlers, JKD guys, etc. are now defined as praticing Traditional Martial Arts! I know on MY HS wrestling team, you damn well better be doing the way coach said!

Seriously, the division is arbitrary and misleading, traditionally, my Kung Fu style grapples, boxes and competes full contact. For 100 years we have encouraged instructors to add/subtract/alter what they teach to suit the times, individual teacher skills, and student needs. Some of our Sifu teach a very gentle system, since they have many elderly students who are not really up to a lot of kickboxing, other Sifu teach BJJ and train in kickboxing themselves. The so-called McDojos are not traditional, they pretty much cropped up in the last 30-40 years, many of the styles calling themselves traditional are barely 50 years old (if that).


----------



## KanoLives (Jul 28, 2003)

I'm not to sure why anyone would want to just get a black belt in one art and then run to another art and start to study that.  I only speak for my school but once you get a black belt in my school you might actually just start learning the art. Why leave if you haven't even begun to learn the art?  It just doesn't make sense to me. Do other schools just teach you the whole art until black belt then after that it's just review for the rest of your life? Someone please help understand this.  

:asian:


----------



## MJS (Jul 28, 2003)

Thats correct! Once you reach BB, the journey does not come to and end, it seems like it starts all over again!  Once you reach the higher levels of BB, it turns into more of going back over the material, making sure that you have an understanding of it and really looking at the tech. and what it is teaching you.  If you look at how Mr. Parker broke down each tech. with such a detailed desc. it is really amazing as to what you are learning.  He also talks about the "what ifs" that are also very important to look at.  

So, why change if there is so much more to go?  Why not stay and continue to explore the other things that there are to explore?  Is there something that is lacking in your current style that you want to learn?  Do you feel that what you have learned is not going to be effective?  The list can go on and on and on and on.  This is a question that only each individual person can answer.

For me, I saw the ground fighting craze in the 90's, and wanted to see what it was like.  I remember training with my grappling Inst.  In the first lesson, he got me in the mounted position and ask me to get out.  As hard as i tried, I could not remove him from me.  It was then that I realized and said to myself, "I want to learn this stuff!"  That was many years ago, and I'm still grappling.  I was also introduced to Modern Arnis.  I saw how deadly this art was.  With the many things that you can do with the stick, and the joint locks, and how easily things could be applied to empty hand, I was amazed.  

Cross training is not for everyone.  Some people are all for it, while others are against it.  It all depends on the person.  But if someone decides to do it, that is their choice.

Mike


----------



## DAC..florida (Jul 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by twinkletoes _
> *I agree that TMA'ers benefit tremendously from MMA training.
> 
> 
> ...




I feel that it is necessary because one should have a full understanding of the traditional values and traditions of the arts, most MMA I know dont teach the traditions and origin of the arts they teach self defence alone.

Do I consider the above styles as traditional, No because most of these styles get thier techniques from some other system, not saying theres anything wrong with them.


----------



## DAC..florida (Jul 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *Does the base really have to be from a traditioanal art?
> 
> How about the olympic wrestlers who are doing great as MMA'ers? How about a boxer making a transition to MMA's?
> ...




If you can find a MMA that teaches a good base ( striking, blocking, redirecting, balance ect.) than no the base doesnt have to be from TMA.

I agree that boxers, wrestlers, submission ect. are great and some do have a good base others do not.
 :asian:


----------



## James Kovacich (Jul 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by DAC..florida _
> *If you can find a MMA that teaches a good base ( striking, blocking, redirecting, balance ect.) than no the base doesnt have to be from TMA.
> 
> I agree that boxers, wrestlers, submission ect. are great and some do have a good base others do not.
> :asian: *



Yea, my Sifu has trained under his father for like 35 years, since he was 8 years old. Now he has his own interpetation too. He is almost another category too because they are not tradional except for the fact that they teach their version of the "original JKD" and not the concepts. I think we can go on.

:asian:


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Jul 28, 2003)

TMA, for better and worse, TEND TO HAVE a more rigid methodology due to cultural background, but this rigidness can be found in MMA and vice versa, and so is not a good distinction by itself.

How about this distinction ...

TMA are those passed down in such a way that they can be traced back from master to master to their point of origin, geographically and otherwise, and the overall style is recognizable between all generations.

MMA can BECOME TMA if the art stays in the same "style" over one or more generations, regardless of dilution or evolution -- the basic principles stay the same.

However, the premise behind MMA seems to be the individual instead of the style, and evolution takes precedence over preservation, and therefore some are less likely to ever become TMA.  Those as such are not styles at all, as is the case for true JKD as intended by Bruce Lee.


Me?  I study Traditional-STYLE martial arts, but would never claim to be studying (or teaching) true TMA.  Psychologically, I am more suited for MMA, but wish I had more TMA training.


----------



## twinkletoes (Jul 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by DAC..florida _
> *I feel that it is necessary because one should have a full understanding of the traditional values and traditions of the arts, most MMA I know dont teach the traditions and origin of the arts they teach self defence alone. *



Well, the obvious follow up question here is "Why do you feel it is _necessary_  to have a full understanding of the 'traditional values and traditions of the arts'?"  

And second to that, while MMA practice doesn't often include "lessons" of this variety, does anyone believe that MMAers do/don't learn the same things?  Which lessons do you think they learn more of?  Which do you think they learn less of?

Just keepin' the conversation going, because I really am interested.   

~TT


----------



## KennethKu (Jul 28, 2003)

In the military, we don't pay a rat *** attention to what is "traditional" vs what is not.  Old strategies, old tactics, new tactics, new strategies, all are fair. We don't piss this or that away because "it does not belong to our style". Whatever that brings victory in battle, is studied and adopted.  It is ridiculous that when it comes to martial arts, you have amateurs spliting hair on WHAT they ought to learn or hold on to.  

"Take what is useful and discard the rest."  It is important to study other arts, but not to get hold up in them. Some people study one art and declare that it is "the way", "the truth".  Well, you ought to know by now that, there is no one, single "truth" or single "way".  All arts, at the master level, are more or less the same, in terms of competency.  But on your way to achieve that level of competency, you have to absorb a lot of the crap and junk that the founders, in their flawed wisdom, have thrown in there with the rest of the goodies. ( Yeah yeah , I know. This might piss off those who worship their founders or GM as infallable when it comes to their martial art. Tough.   )   If you can filter out the junk, and get at the goodies, you would learn a lot faster, and do not have to put up with the "time in rank" sort of BS.

Another person posted something about MMA being just another term for "free for all, garden variety mix of Jack of all trades" type salad bowl of half baked martial art.  I tend to agree. That is why you have little soke-dokey jumping in with their own "style" , looking for a piece of the action.  

People say the biggest problem in the MA community is the lack of integrity.  That is true is all trades and industries.  But in the MA community, we got what we deserve if we don't police ourselves and put with up with soke-dokey.

Enuff  :soapbox:    

What's the topic again?


----------



## A.R.K. (Jul 28, 2003)

In high liability professions such as the military, law enforcement, corrections, E.P. and high level security there is the very high probability that force may be called on in any given day.  A much higher probability than most citizens.  Do these high liability professionals use TMA's or MMA's?

For the most part it is MMA's.  And for a very good reason, it works in real combat.  It is easier to learn in a shorter period of time.  Time translates to money in the world.  Money that is often lacking from budgets.  Soldiers, Deputies, Officers, Troopers and Agents need to learn the most useful techniques and tactics in the shortest amount of time.

Sir Peter Boatman is a prime example.  His Edged weapons Instructor course last only two days.  That is TWO days!  Yet it is so simple and highly effective that officer injuries dropped from 87% to 16% after implimentation.  So effective was the simply techniques that officers only required a refresher every 18 months rather than the standard 12.  Thus a savings in man power, funds and most importantly officers lives.  He was knighted by the queen of England becasue of it.  

If it is an 'art' one desires, then TMA's are fantastic.  If solid self defense in a reasonable amount of time then MMA's.  

Doesn't matter who's name is attached to the discipline as long as it works!

:asian:


----------



## KennethKu (Jul 28, 2003)

Let's don't over-hype MA in the military or LEO. In the west, the elite military units hardly pay much attention to MA training.  (Although some sokey dokey in the BlackBelt mag would like you to believe otherwise.)

The uninformed tend to fascinate the military and the police as super martial artists. The truth is, most of the troops and the LEO's cannot fight their way out of a donut bag, without their weapons and backup. The cops learn a few tricks about how to handle a drunk or unruly enraged punks. That is not the same as being an MA expert. (May be that makes them MMA experts then. lol )

The western elite fighting units spend 99% of their training effort on weapons training.  

Only the elite units of Asian countries pay serious attention to MA training.  And quess what, they all study their respective national arts. TKD, KT or MT. Only that the military study the combat versions.  The elite units of Korea (both North and South), Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, China, all are experts in their national MA.


----------



## twinkletoes (Jul 29, 2003)

I think we're starting to speak the same words and mean different things.  I propose the following terminology, so that this discussion doesn't become confused:

Eclectic MA:  a single discipline or method that is taught with a specific curriculum drawn from different sources.  It is still a TMA, but it contains information from a mix of different arts.  This is what most self-made soke are preaching.  

MMA:  a training regimen specific to "ultimate fighting" "vale tudo" or "MMA" events.  It is a specific set of skills relevant to competitive practice including standing, clinch, and groundfighting, including strikes, standup and ground control, and submissions.


"E"MA are just newfangled TMA, with new names to stroke some new soke's ego.  MMA is a sport-specific training method, which *just happens* to be about the best way to prepare yourself for hand-to-hand combat of any kind, be it sport or self-defense.

~TT


----------



## A.R.K. (Jul 29, 2003)

> The uninformed tend to fascinate the military and the police as super martial artists.



I'm not sure anyone has tried to portray either the military or police as super martial artists in this thread.  Quite the contrary it has been the opposite.  For example S.E.P.S.I.  reguarly brings in many elite people and groups for officers to take courses from.  But they definately fall into the MMD end of the spectrum.  Perhaps other countries employ traditional training and forms, the western cultures do not.  

My point is that the high liability groups gravitate much more towards MMD because of it's combat effectiveness and the shorter duration of training.  It simply works.



> The truth is, most of the troops and the LEO's cannot fight their way out of a donut bag, without their weapons and backup.



I would like to see your research in this area that justifies this statement.  High liability professionals are much more likely on any given duty day to utilize physical means to control/defeat a subject.  Happens thousands of times each day just in this country alone.  To say most cannot fight is a rather over simplistic and inaccurate opinion, not something based in fact.  Yes some are not good in a fight.  Some are not in the shape they could be.  But people are people.  

I would put the average Detention Deputy with some S.E.P.S.I. training against the average BB any day.  Why?  Because chances are the average BB hasn't been in a real fight outside the playground and trains in an unrealistic *art.*   Whereas the average DD has probably had to put his hands on real BG's in lawful uses-of-force numerous times in his career.  Experience over theory.



> The cops learn a few tricks about how to handle a drunk or unruly enraged punks



No, officers learn sound Defensive Tactics covering a variety of situations including drunks which btw can be one of the most dangerous individuals to fight.  The first is a tie between an MDP and a drug user.  There are no 'tricks' to it.  



> The western elite fighting units spend 99% of their training effort on weapons training.



And your documentation to back this up would be???  True, much time is spent on weapons training, but not 99%.  Hand to hand combat is a good part, jump training, scuba training, tracking, wilderness survival etc etc.  Depends largely on the elite unit and their mission as to how they train.  

Which goes directly back to my original point:  High liability professionals need what will work the best in the least amount of time.  There is simply no time or money for unnessasary frills.

I await your factual data that supports your above conclusions.

:asian:


----------



## A.R.K. (Jul 29, 2003)

I would add that my comments above should in no way be taken to disrespect BB's in any art or discipline.  The point being only in actual, realistic experience a DD, trooper, Deptuy, Officer etc has a higher likelyhood of actually using their training...more often...and in more serious situations.

:asian:


----------



## Jotaro Joestar (Jul 31, 2003)

In my opinion the only problem that TMA's have with not being able to adapt to any situation is in the Instructer not training their students to be able to, and the student not able to make a transition of the application to a new one.  If you only train applications of your forms standing up, then you will mostly only be able to fight/defend standing up.  Just because the forms are performed on your feet, does not mean that they can not be applied to ground techniques.  Either the Instructer does not have a good enough understanding of all the possible applications of every part of each form, is closed minded, or is saving it for later.  You have to train in different situations to be proficient in different situations.  That does not mean that TMA are incomplete, they just are not being adapted in practice to all situations.  A form without disecting all possible applications is not complete.


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Aug 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jotaro Joestar _
> *In my opinion the only problem that TMA's have with not being able to adapt to any situation is in the Instructer not training their students to be able to, and the student not able to make a transition of the application to a new one.  ... A form without disecting all possible applications is not complete. *



Nice.  I'm glad someone brought this out.


----------



## zen_hydra (Aug 1, 2003)

> In my opinion the only problem that TMA's have with not being able to adapt to any situation is in the Instructer not training their students to be able to, and the student not able to make a transition of the application to a new one. If you only train applications of your forms standing up, then you will mostly only be able to fight/defend standing up. Just because the forms are performed on your feet, does not mean that they can not be applied to ground techniques. Either the Instructer does not have a good enough understanding of all the possible applications of every part of each form, is closed minded, or is saving it for later. You have to train in different situations to be proficient in different situations. That does not mean that TMA are incomplete, they just are not being adapted in practice to all situations. A form without disecting all possible applications is not complete.



I agree with this completely.  So many TMA are currently being thought of as incomplete.  Many TMA's are considered to be solely standing/striking disciplines, when in fact, they were developed to be able to deal with all aspects of hand-to-hand combat at the time that they were created.  Wrestling, in its many forms, is the worlds oldest fighting art (cave painting old), it spans culture, and the globe.  If kung fu, and karate, and all the myriad other fighting arts developed in the same world in which wrestling already existed, then for it to be effective at all it would have to have a way to deal with grappling/clinching/ground fighters.  I am sure that it is the teachers and not the curriculum of most TMA's that are failing their students.  By not learning to apply their fighting skills to all appropriate situations, these students have been set up for failure.


----------



## twinkletoes (Aug 1, 2003)

You guys have hit on 2 important things.

1)  _How_ you train is more important that "what's included" in the curriculum.

The method of training makes the differences in the effectiveness of an individual.  

Following from this, you have started to hint that:

2)  _What_  you train should be directly applicable when using realistic training methods.

Form should follow function, and curriculum should reinforce the training methods.

What you train comes from how you train it.  

~TT


----------



## Jotaro Joestar (Aug 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by twinkletoes _
> *You guys have hit on 2 important things.
> 
> 1)  How you train is more important that "what's included" in the curriculum.
> ...




Is how you train more important than what's included in the curriculum?  Yes and no.  Is it more important than progressing to the next belt/sash/cert. without a full understanding of all possible applications, yes.  But that does not mean that you can't continue learning new material and still work on new applications from forms you have learned earlier.  You need the forms to have the necessary material to draw from.  If you always react the same way(s) to an attack, then it will not take long to be beaten.

The training should not be just what you think is realistic.  If you are training to be able to adapt yourself in any situation, then you should train in impractical situations as well.  Such as if you want to be able to fight great inside a 5' diameter culvert, then you should train in a 5' diameter culvert.  Will you most likely ever be in a situation to have to fight in one, probably not, but you will be more prepared if you ever have to fight in one.

Forms do follow function, but it is up to you to apply and think beyond a tangent.  Follow the circle.


----------



## MJS (Aug 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jotaro Joestar _
> *Is how you train more important than what's included in the curriculum?  Yes and no.  Is it more important than progressing to the next belt/sash/cert. without a full understanding of all possible applications, yes.  But that does not mean that you can't continue learning new material and still work on new applications from forms you have learned earlier.  You need the forms to have the necessary material to draw from.  If you always react the same way(s) to an attack, then it will not take long to be beaten.
> 
> The training should not be just what you think is realistic.  If you are training to be able to adapt yourself in any situation, then you should train in impractical situations as well.  Such as if you want to be able to fight great inside a 5' diameter culvert, then you should train in a 5' diameter culvert.  Will you most likely ever be in a situation to have to fight in one, probably not, but you will be more prepared if you ever have to fight in one.
> ...



You're right!  Will we ever be able to prepare for every situation?  Probably not. But, we can definately do our best to train in a realistic fashion.  Thats one of the reasons I love to train outdoors and in street clothes.  Sometimes I'll work out in jeans.  It makes a big differerence due to the fact that they are not as loose fitting as gi pants.  Do we wear gi pants all the time? No.  People always talk about kicks.  Ok, I'd like to see the female TKD student who has super high kicks in the dojo, throw those very same kicks wearing heels.  What is she going to say, "Wait a min. Mr. attacker while I take my shoes off so I can kick your *** better."LOL-- adapting is definately a big part of training that is often over looked.

Mike


----------



## twinkletoes (Aug 1, 2003)

Jotaro Joestar,

I agree with some of your post.  However, I have a big problem with something you've said.  Please don't take this as anything personal or hostile, but I need to make a strong point.  



> _Originally posted by Jotaro Joestar _
> *You need the forms to have the necessary material to draw from.  *



I reject this outright.  They are one method of codifying information.  They are a tool, and an unreliable one.  

Different people interpret different applications from the same movements--whose is correct?  Are they both correct?  If all reasonable interpretations are correct, then it doesn't matter what you draw the interpretations from--they could be taken from dance or gymnastics routines, since those might contain similar movements.  

Some people use forms as a guide to motion.  They use it as a template for discussing different actions of the body.  If that is the style of teaching that works for you, then use it.  However, it is far from necessary.

Here is a short list of effective combat athletes that do not use forms:  Boxers, Kickboxers, Wrestlers, BJJ'ers, MMA'ers, and Muay Thai or Savate practitioners.  This is by no means an exhaustive list.  

None of the above studies include forms, and yet all of the practitioners of the above methods have no trouble applying their art, especially in an alive environment with a freely uncooperative opponent.  Their *training method* is based on developing the timing and distancing to build tactics that overcome resistance.  Again, it is not the curriculum, but the training method.  

And who is going to tell a boxer that he has not sufficiently explored the applications of his jab?  How silly would that be?  "Have you tried throwing the jab when they come at you from the side?"  "Have you tried throwing the jab wearing jeans?"  It becomes silliness.  

Develop a delivery system, through alive training.  From there, add whatever additional moves you feel you need.  To loosely quote Matt Thornton, "You take someone and teach him an eyepoke.  You have him practice eyepoke drills with a partner, or do forms with eyepokes.  I'm gonna take someone with 3 months of amateur boxing experience and teach him an eyepoke, and you'd better keep your hands in front of your face."

~TT


----------



## Jotaro Joestar (Aug 1, 2003)

By "You need the forms to have the necessary material to draw from. "  I was referring to TMA training in regards to training over curriculum progression.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 1, 2003)

It seems perfectly reasonable, to me, to adopt these methods of learning to fight. After all, they are perfectly in keeping with the rack of fantasies that the rest of our culture promotes, and they certainly will promote an efficient fighting. Or in other words, it's exactly the same issue as "Jurassic Park."

Oh, and incidentally, folks like Matt Thornton have the luxury of teaching very athletic students who want to fight. Their success doesn't necessarily say a thing about the superiority of their methods of teaching.


----------



## twinkletoes (Aug 1, 2003)

Robert, 

If you talk with Matt Thornton or more closely read about his school, he has over 600 students in Oregon.  The majority of them do not compete, nor are they atheletes.  Of his 600, he has less than 10 that compete (I want to say 7 but I confess to not remembering exactly).  

Matt said something like this about conditioning:  "To do this you need to be in some kind of shape so you don't hurt yourself.  Now, this isn't the same as being a competitor--you need to be in good shape for that.  But if you came to me and said 'Matt, I want to play pick-up games of basketball 3 says a week,' I would say 'You need to get yourself in some kind of shape so you don't hurt yourself."

Have you trained at an SBG affiliate, or at their seminars?  You will see very quickly, if you get the opportunity, that they have something very real to offer everyone.

Jotaro Joestar,

Taken in that context I understand.  Unqualified statements like that just irk me  

~TT


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 1, 2003)

OK, more than fair enough. But I will bet that, at best, his average student works out to about what the average student works out to where I presently train.

I'm just not interested in all this cross-training. Among other things, a) I barely have time and energy for what I'm presently doing, b) I've only been training 12 years or so, and I'm nowhere near "mastering," what I am at present studying, c) despite all the yelling, it simply isn't necessary for me.

Thanks for the correction.


----------



## twinkletoes (Aug 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *I'm just not interested in all this cross-training. Among other things, a) I barely have time and energy for what I'm presently doing, b) I've only been training 12 years or so, and I'm nowhere near "mastering," what I am at present studying, c) despite all the yelling, it simply isn't necessary for me. *



That is perhaps one of the most sensible posts I've heard defending the position not to crosstrain.  Simple, to the point, rhetoric free....I can totally respect that.  Good post.

~TT


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Aug 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *... I'm just not interested in all this cross-training. Among other things, a) I barely have time and energy for what I'm presently doing, b) I've only been training 12 years or so, and I'm nowhere near "mastering," what I am at present studying...*



You know how someone's always asking "Does anybody know any good schools near me?"

Here's a tougher one ... 

"Are there any schools around where I live that I can personally believe in enough to train for MORE than a few years?"

I would venture to say that without even realizing it, most of us cross-train because we have no other choice.


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Aug 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jotaro Joestar _
> *By "You need the forms to have the necessary material to draw from. "  I was referring to TMA training in regards to training over curriculum progression. *



Forms are a living archive of a system's techniques and applications.  By themselves, you can't even "master" a form, because there will be little understanding.  But when put in context of the whole system, the forms can be useful -- if not vital -- to learning it properly and consistently between people and generations.

Of course, they will evolve, and watching a person's forms will tell you what lineage or sub-style of something they train in.  It is a definitave mark of the identity of a TCMA.


----------



## MJS (Aug 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski _
> *You know how someone's always asking "Does anybody know any good schools near me?"
> 
> Here's a tougher one ...
> ...



Good point Ken!   We all train for different reasons, we all have different goals, and what works for one, might not work for another.  But, for those of us that do want to really learn to defend ourselves, we need to find a school or person that addresses this.  Alot of schools around focus on the sport aspect of the arts, which is fine, if thats what you want.  Alot of places dont really emphasize 'combat' because they dont want to lose a student if there is too much contact, or the class is too hard or rough, etc.  One thing that everybody that signs up for lessons should realize, is that even in a sport oriented school, there will be some degree of contact.  If people are too afraid of the contact, maybe they should take up sewing!  The worse that can happen there is that you get pricked by the needle!

Mike


----------



## DAC..florida (Aug 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *Good point Ken!   We all train for different reasons, we all have different goals, and what works for one, might not work for another.  But, for those of us that do want to really learn to defend ourselves, we need to find a school or person that addresses this.  Alot of schools around focus on the sport aspect of the arts, which is fine, if thats what you want.  Alot of places dont really emphasize 'combat' because they dont want to lose a student if there is too much contact, or the class is too hard or rough, etc.  One thing that everybody that signs up for lessons should realize, is that even in a sport oriented school, there will be some degree of contact.  If people are too afraid of the contact, maybe they should take up sewing!  The worse that can happen there is that you get pricked by the needle!
> 
> Mike *



WOW!
I couldnt of said it better myself. The only thing I would add is that if thier afraid of to much rough contact maybe ballet dancing would be a better choice.:rofl:


----------



## A.R.K. (Aug 2, 2003)

Twinkletoes,

That was a good post in regards to forms, the lack of realistic need for forms and disciplines that don't use them.

Bravo
:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 2, 2003)

I'm just gonna keep posting reasons to learn and to teach those, "useless," forms, as an opposition to the prevailing dogma.

#4: Students need forms to organize their efforts, and to provide a refuge from the sheer violence of martial arts.


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Aug 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *I'm just gonna keep posting reasons to learn and to teach those, "useless," forms, as an opposition to the prevailing dogma. *



How about this ... anyone who has done a form OVER a thousand times will know its secrets start to reveal themselves ... hidden applictions, combinations, flow from one opponent to the next without hesitation, etc..

But I wonder how many people HAVEN'T done any form at least 1000 times, yet criticizes their value ...


----------



## ob2c (Aug 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski _
> *I would venture to say that without even realizing it, most of us cross-train because we have no other choice. *



I practice what most of you would say is a TMA, American Kenpo. But I have to go for private instruction when I can, and currently I'm having problems keeping a training partner here. So most of my realistic training (as opposed to working on a dummy or in the air) is working out with other martial artists in other styles. This is a sort of cross training, and I've noticed that it gives me a little different perspective and a better understanding of my own art. So I say mix it up, but you don't have to abandon what you are doing just to "round out " or "complete" your style. I'm not an advanced student by any stretch, but sometimes you does what ya gotta do, with or without that "solid base in one style."


----------



## A.R.K. (Aug 2, 2003)

> I'm just gonna keep posting reasons to learn and to teach those, "useless," forms, as an opposition to the prevailing dogma.



I don't think it is a case of being useless, bad or wrong.  It is a case of are they necessary.  The answer would depend on how you view your training and what you expect/want out of it.  If you are training in a martial _art_  with an eye on items other than/in addition to self defense they are wonderful.  If you train in what I refer to as a martial _discipline_  where the eye is on self defense in realistic situations then they are fine to train in but not necessarily needed.  As mentioned many disciplines do not have forms and do just fine without them.  I haven't taught forms in quite some time, however, for personal enjoyment I like three in particular.  They help my focus and warm up before work out sessions.  But I personally feel that I get more out of 'shadow' sparring/fighting than a prearranged form in regards to realistic aspects.



> #4: Students need forms to organize their efforts, and to provide a refuge from the sheer violence of martial arts.



Could you clarify this for me?  Martial arts are inherently violent, that is the reason they exist.  Forms are in simplistic terms, pre arranged fights.  How would a form then provide a refuge?  Not nit picking you here, I just feel I am misunderstanding your message  

:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 2, 2003)

#5: Forms teach us the true proportions of the body, and how to measure distances and ranges in individual terms.


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Aug 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by A.R.K. _
> *... Martial arts are inherently violent, that is the reason they exist.  Forms are in simplistic terms, pre arranged fights.  How would a form then provide a refuge?  ...*



(A) One approach is that martial arts can be a non-violent response to violence.  More skill eliminates the need for excessive force.  Any moron can kill someone -- it takes SKILL to control a situation.

(B) Forms are not meant to be "pre-arranged" but instead are a series of permutations of technique combinations and situational transition.  And there is nothing simplistic about that.


----------



## A.R.K. (Aug 2, 2003)

> (A) One approach is that martial arts can be a non-violent response to violence. More skill eliminates the need for excessive force. Any moron can kill someone -- it takes SKILL to control a situation.



We agree that it does take more skill to control than more direct/damaging techniques.  However, even in control one must apply force.  At least when it comes to hands on techniques and not simple evasion/redirection.  Force even at that level could be considered violent.  Symantics to be sure, but just some thoughts to share.



> (B) Forms are not meant to be "pre-arranged" but instead are a series of permutations of technique combinations and situational transition. And there is nothing simplistic about that.



But unfortunately, is that not how the majority are taught?  This is why I prefer, from the perspective of realism, to practice shadow drills.  And again, I'm not against forms per se, but it seems most are seen/taught as class filler.  Finding the 'hidden meaning' is fine for esoteric considerations, but one does not need to delve deeply into them to fight a Bg successfully.

My humble opinion.

:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 3, 2003)

#6: Forms teach us to move towards the integration of both sides of the body.


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Aug 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by A.R.K. _
> *... even in control one must apply force.  At least when it comes to hands on techniques and not simple evasion/redirection.  Force even at that level could be considered violent.  Symantics to be sure, but just some thoughts to share. *



Forget symantics -- FORCE does not equate Violence -- AT ALL.

I can disable someone with the force it takes to close a door.  (Welcome to soft style martial arts.)  Closing a door is not violence.  In fact, even slamming it is not.  Taking someone down in a controlled manner so they are locked without being hurt is not violence.

Even HURTING someone (causing pain only), such as spanking a child, is not violence.  HARMING them IS (abuse instead of discipline).  

Pain is constructive, damage is destructive.  

Sparring is not violent, unless there is truly intent to harm the other person.  That's why there are boxing gloves -- turning violence into a "less-violent" sport.

Unless we are clear about waht such words mean (and what they do not), discussion falls into unecessary grey area.

So I'm not splitting hairs here -- I mean this wholeheartedly -- I can "kick someone's ****" using martial arts, and not become violent, if I am skilled enough.  




> *
> ... This is why I prefer, from the perspective of realism, to practice shadow drills.  ... Finding the 'hidden meaning' is fine for esoteric considerations, but one does not need to delve deeply into them to fight a Bg successfully.*



I LOVE shadow drills.  But then again, "forms" are shadow drills, right?  

And I don't mean anything esoteric by the word hidden.  I just mean not obvious to the eye.  There are "hidden" nuances in classical music compositions that you will not hear or see unless you study music theory or listen to it many, many times.

Sometimes you do a form forever, and then find yourself usinga technique you didn't even know you knew.  Later you look back and say, "Holy Cow that's from that form I did a thousand times!  I never knew you could use it for that!?!?!"


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Aug 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *#6: Forms teach us to move towards the integration of both sides of the body. *



As long as you don't mean symmetry, I agree.  The body was not meant to be symmetrical.

Also, keep in mind that the more primitive forms (such as most beginner Karate forms or even some Kung Fu ones, like Si Lim Tao in Wing Chun) are the most widelly taught these days, and they do not integrate the body well at all.  Half the time the other hand is kept out of the way, and the feet stay in position for most techniques.  Then again, they are early training sets and that is not their purpose.


----------



## twinkletoes (Aug 3, 2003)

While we're on the topic of forms now, I just wrote an article about them 6 months ago.  It will be published on Roy Harris' new website, which is set to launch later this month.  

I'll sum up some quick points:

Forms DO build....

speed
strength
technique
accuracy
endurance
concentration
focus
balance

Forms DO NOT build....

Distancing
Timing
Awareness
Improvisation

Forms can be used as a way to memorize a set of techniques, or to give yourself an easy way to practice them.  They are a perfectly acceptable method of solo practice, just like practicing in front of a mirror, hitting a heavy bag, or shadowboxing.  

On the other hand, they are not an effective method of training by themselves.  Like those other methods, they need to be coupled with drills, games, or activities that involve unrehearsed distancing and timing, in order to build appropriate tactics and the ability to provide the correct response in a dynamic environment.  

They do have a purpose.  However, their purpose can be achieved through other means just as well.  Here it becomes a matter of personal preference.  For example, some people would rather do forms, and some people would rather hit the heavy bag for a couple hours.  While there are some little differences, they are similar.  

In terms of memorizing the curriculum, it could be done with or without forms.  The attributes built by forms could be done in other ways.  But the same could be said for things like breaking or heavy bag work.  

In the end, it is perfectly OK to want to do forms.  It is also OK to want to NOT do forms.  As long as you understand what they accomplish, and you don't neglect any necessary areas, then your training is in good shape.

~TT


----------



## 7starmantis (Aug 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by twinkletoes _
> *Forms DO NOT build....
> 
> Distancing
> ...



I think I will have to not agree with this. Distancing is learned quite a bit in forms practice. The distancing of your feet, your distance to and from the walls of your practice area, what about the other 12 people doing their forms in that same room?

Timing is one of the major advantages of forms in my beliefs. When you do a block punch you can see exactly how off your timing is in your block to your punch. Forms exsentuate timing so you can work on it.

Improvisation is learned mainly through playing hands with your forms, but what about when you are playing a form and get in the middle and forget it? Do you not improvise to complete the set?

Lets not forget two man sets that are great forms for learning all of the afformentioned qualities.

7sm


----------



## FST (Aug 3, 2003)

I feel that using or not using forms is up to the choice of the practioner.  I no longer utilize pre-arranged forms and prefer to use shadow-fighting, bag work and other training tools to develop my skills alone.  I have friends that still utilize forms and enjoy them and they work for their personal training.  Forms do not have to be utilized to become a great martial artist, they are simply a training tool to be used by the individual among many tools.  If you use forms then that is good for you and if you don't then that is good as well.  

In regards to the original purpose of this thread.  I like MMA (of MMD or RBSD) for my training purposes.  I have plenty of friends that focus on TMA or a mix of TMA and MMA.  Again, it is up to the individual to determine how they would like best to train.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 3, 2003)

#7: Forms teach poise, coupled with the repertoire of motion--and more importantly, a sense of the possible range of useful motion--upon which genuine improvisation must be based.


----------



## twinkletoes (Aug 3, 2003)

7starmantis,

I understand what you mean.  Forms may help you with an awareness of what proper distancing and timing look and feel like.  I agree with the way you put that.

However, when I say "distancing" and "timing" in terms of appropriate attributes, I am referring to the kind of distancing and timing that are used in sparring:  

distancing:  the ability to place yourself at the appropriate location when launching a technique, or the ability to determine exactly what technique is appropriate in a particular location

timing:  the ability to recognize the correct time to execute a move

If you are practicing by yourself, you cannot build this kind of timing, because you are not reacting to what someone else is doing.  This is the kind of timing one needs to learn!  And if the you have a partner, and the partner is doing something prechoreographed, it may feel like you are learning timing, but it is not a true sense of timing.  There needs to be a certain freedom to it--that's what allows the student to find the right time by him/herself.  

I'll give you an example.  If you and I put gloves on and do some punching drills, we could do the following:

I stand in front of you with my hands up.  When my hands drop, you punch me in the face.  

This may sound like a really good drill for distancing and timing, but if we aren't moving our feet, it isn't!

However, if we do the same drill, with spontaneous, unchoreographed footwork, it will build proper distancing and timing.  Why?  Because it forces you to place yourself in the right place and punch at the right time.  You must improvise, using the skills you have developed, in order to correctly address the dynamic situation.  If we stand with feet planted, or with prechoreographed footwork, it won't help you learn how to get yourself from the wrong place to the right place.

This is the kind of attribute that forms practice will not build.  However, putting the two methods together would be a good match.  The forms would begin to build your awareness, and then a drill like this would give you the ability to use what you had practiced in a spontaneous, sparring-like environment.

Does this make sense?

~TT

PS - I like what Robert has just said:  



> a sense of the possible range of useful motion--upon which genuine improvisation must be based.



I think that sounds like a good way to put it.


----------



## 7starmantis (Aug 3, 2003)

I wasn't disagreing with your complete thoughts twinkletoes, I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. Also I do plenty of full contact, full speed training. I'm just saying forms do teach you more than you think they do. 

Your martial skill is measured by how you can adapt to any situation. It is not possible to train for every possible situation that may arize, this is why you must learn how to adapt, yes even forms, to the real world. Notice I did not say forget forms and train in other situations, forms have a very important role in learning the basic movements and creating what we call muscle memory.

7sm


----------



## Brother John (Aug 3, 2003)

There is a big difference in what people term as a "traditional discipline". 
Being 'non-traditional' is not the same as being a mixed martial artist... which really isn't a martial art... but a combative sport.

Just a thought...
Your Bro.
John


----------



## twinkletoes (Aug 3, 2003)

7sm,

I didn't think you were disagreeing.  No worries, my man.   

I did think that I needed to clarify how I meant those terms, because we weren't using them the same way.

The training you describe sounds like what I have in mind.  I think we are definitely thinking along the same lines.


Brother John,

You are right.  There are other categories besides traditional and MMA.  In fact, MMA is slowly but surely becoming its own distinct training regimen/method that could be compared to trad. arts as a separate discipline, rather than a category.  

Really, we could say the following exist:

1)  Traditional Arts
2)  Eclectic Arts
3)  Sportive/Competitive Disciplines
4)  "Martial" Fitness Programs
5)  Combative Arts

Traditional Arts often focus on the development of character and the continuation of traditional training methods, approaches, and material.

Eclectic arts are often blends of traditional methods, or "updated" approaches to traditional methods, approaches, or material.  

Sportive/Competitive Disciplines are often programs that emphasize competition or sport-based activities, and train towards those ends.

"Martial" Fitness programs are exercise plans that include movements common in martial arts.

Combative arts often focus on developing down 'n dirty, realistic, pragmatic techniques, like biting, gouging, spitting, ripping, breaking, and killing.  


These categories are not exclusive, and in fact, I feel that often programs belong to one or more categories.  It is possible to have a traditional/combative program, a traditional/sportive program (often Judo fits here), or a sportive/combative program (MMA programs that also address "dirty tactics" can fit here).

I think it is possible for a style to fit in most of these categories at once.  It depends upon the training methodologies employed and the goals addressed.

~TT


----------



## twinkletoes (Aug 3, 2003)

I think to take this a step further, it is often simplified into traditional vs. MMA not because the arts are exclusive, but because the training approaches often are.

MMA programs are based around competitive arenas, and in doing so train almost exclusively against resistance.

Traditional programs often (though certainly not always) use training methods that do not emphasize freedom to resist on the part of the attacker.  

Because of this contrast, most people think of these as the main categories.

In truth, there is more to the story.  Traditional Judo emphasizes randori, throwing off the "traditional" distinction in some people's minds, even though Judo is taught in a very traditional way, with universally identical techniques.  

So our distinction needs to be made more specific.  Arts like Judo which stress improvisation and learning to overcome free resistance can use their methods well, because they continue to test them.  At the same time, advanced Judo kata include moves that are not used or allowed in randori, and are done against compliant attackers.  This seems to put Judo in both categories at once.

~TT


----------



## James Kovacich (Aug 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski _
> [B
> 
> But I wonder how many people HAVEN'T done any form at least 1000 times, yet criticizes their value ...
> [/B]



I can honestly sat that there was a time that was the primary method of training that I was taught.

Oh isn't 1000 a great number! Heres something interesting. Since any given form can be considered to have an "infinate" number of techniques including variations. Then just practicing 1 form 1000 times should in essence be an excellant way for a student to learn (and be able to apply) an "infinate" number of ways in which to defend themselves.

Technically after practicing any given form a 1000 times a student "should" be well on his way to becoming a devestating fighter with his "infinate" number of techniques!

Yes 1000 is a great number! But I don't need an "infinate" number of "possibilities" to teach my student. Maybe 25 is more realistic. Lets see, a jab, hook, uppercut, straight cross, vertical and horizontal elbows, headbutt, eyejab, round house kick, a few takedowns (thats 12 so far), a few arm locks, 5 chokes and 5 leglocks including heel hooks. Now my student will practice these 25 (no where near an infinite number) techniques a 1000 times. 

Now who is going to progress faster and more proficiently (as a fighter)? I think I know who I'll put my money on.



:asian:


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Aug 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *I can honestly sat that there was a time that was the primary method of training that I was taught.
> 
> Oh isn't 1000 a great number! Heres something interesting. Since any given form can be considered to have an "infinate" number of techniques including variations. Then just practicing 1 form 1000 times should in essence be an excellant way for a student to learn (and be able to apply) an "infinate" number of ways in which to defend themselves.
> ...



I did not say or mean this at all, and it does not logically follow. 

Maybe you were told this as an explanation when you weren't ready to understand what was meant.  (No offense meant by this.  :asian:  )  Forms or not, it is best to focus on a limited number of techniques, and the applications (infinite?) will arrive with practice.  Forms HELP YOU do this, and do not "dilute" your training with "infinite" possibilities.  They just end up that way as a by-product of good training, with or without forms, and require no additional mental effort or practice.



> [/B]
> Now who is going to progress faster and more proficiently (as a fighter)? I think I know who I'll put my money on.
> [/B]



All things being equal, "faster" is in contradiction to "more proficient".

If you want to refine the basic techniques over a lifetime to perfection AND be able to use them in progessively more and more situations appropriately, forms will do just that (if used properly, which often times they are not).

But if you're just "playing" martial arts to learn a bunch of techniques, you may as well stop at a 6-week community/adult education course.

(Which, by the way, I have taught for years.  I've done learning and teaching both ways, so I'm not making assumptions about all this.)


----------



## twinkletoes (Aug 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski _
> *All things being equal, "faster" is in contradiction to "more proficient". *



I don't think this is true.  There are some training methods that will produce skills over a long period of time.  There are other methods that will produce the same skill level in a shorter period of time.  That means that some methods of training will make the student "more proficient" "faster" than another method.  There's no contradiction there.

And since akja was speaking in terms of overall functionality (at least, that's my reading of it), I think he is correct there too.  One's overall performance will also hold to the idea that some methods will produce results "faster" while still making the student more proficient.  

I don't think akja is speaking of martial artists who are trying to "refine the techniques over a lifetime" OR "playing at the martial arts to learn a bunch of techniques."  There is plenty of room in between.

For example, someone who takes up boxing in order to improve his ability to defend himself will develop skill in his 6 punches, first by delivering them with good form on the bag or mitts, and then in action by drilling or sparring.  His goal is neither "perfection" nor "playing," but rather to become proficient, and more quickly ("faster") than someone who is doing it by practicing forms 1000 times.  He will do thousands of reps of his punches, but it will be in context and much of it will be while he is moving around inthe ring with a live opponent.  This will allow him to spend less time training than the forms practitioner, because he will not have to do "technique practice" AND live drilling, but he will get both at once.  This means that in less time, he develops more skill.  (Again, forms are an OK way to work on correct technique, but are on about equal footing as other solo training methods like shadowboxing).  

~TT


----------



## MJS (Aug 3, 2003)

If you want to get better at doing something, the only way its going to happen is if you actually get out and train with some resistance.  You can stand in front of a heavy bag all day long doing various combos., but until you get out and spar, you will never know if you will be able to actually pull them off if you needed to.  The heavy bag is not going to hit back, but your training partner will!  I think that is where TT is headed with the "live training" that he talks about! The same goes for the forms.  Yes, they are great, but if you think that by doing them 100 times is going to help you fight better, I dont see how this will happen.  Now, if you take the moves from the kata, and actually apply it on someone who is giving you some resistance, then yes, I can see it paying off.  

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 4, 2003)

#8: Forms teach the beginning student to breathe, and bring more-advanced students back towards their real center.


----------



## James Kovacich (Aug 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski _
> *I did not say or mean this at all, and it does not logically follow.
> 
> Maybe you were told this as an explanation when you weren't ready to understand what was meant.  (No offense meant by this.  :asian:  )  Forms or not, it is best to focus on a limited number of techniques, and the applications (infinite?) will arrive with practice.  Forms HELP YOU do this, and do not "dilute" your training with "infinite" possibilities.  They just end up that way as a by-product of good training, with or without forms, and require no additional mental effort or practice.
> ...



I thought you should know that I do train in 2 styles that use forms but I do not teach them at this time. I will in the future when I teach those classes officially. For now I'm pushing what I beleive is the maost effective use of time. 

I think that all training has its place and that us as individuals need to learn what is better for us as martial artists. But to be limiting oneself to one form of training in my opinion would be like holding myself back.



:asian:


----------



## MJS (Aug 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> [
> I think that all training has its place and that us as individuals need to learn what is better for us as martial artists. But to be limiting oneself to one form of training in my opinion would be like holding myself back.
> 
> ...



Good point!!!  

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 4, 2003)

#9: Forms teach analysis.


----------



## MJS (Aug 4, 2003)

Ok, seeing that forms and the importance keeps coming up, here is another question.  How effectively can they be used to defend yourself?  You watch a tape of Dillman doing the applications of kata.  He does ALL of his KO's on people that are not moving.  They are standing still, waiting for him to do the KO.  Now, I ask, how effective is that?  I'm not saying that all applications have to be a KO, but it is important to do them on someone that is moving, resisting, etc. not standing still.  While I do not want to sound like I'm talking trash about Dillman, I'm simply stating that by not having any "aliveness" (Gee, that word keeps coming up ALOT!!!  Hey, I like that word) you are not going to get the same feeling as you would from an attacker that is resisting.

Opinions on this?

Mike


----------



## twinkletoes (Aug 4, 2003)

Mike,

You are right about many of the dillman KO's.  They are bunkai that seem to be tailored towards stationary attackers.  

However, I don't think many other people do bunkai in his unusual way.

I think most people would take much more contextual type applications from their forms, which, as you noted, would probably be best practiced separately in an alive manner (in order to derive the maximum benefit).

~TT


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Aug 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *Ok, seeing that forms and the importance keeps coming up, here is another question.  How effectively can they be used to defend yourself?  You watch a tape of Dillman doing the applications of kata.  He does ALL of his KO's on people that are not moving.  They are standing still, waiting for him to do the KO.  Now, I ask, how effective is that?  ...*



That's not what forms are for.  Of course it will look silly.  Some people who use forms don't get it and then do embarassingly unrealistic demos.

However, if used properly, you can have someone attack you in a certain way to show a certain part of the form.  

But to set people up one after another to fight to your left, right, front, to demonstrate more than a few movements is, IMO, silly.


----------



## twinkletoes (Aug 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *I think that all training has its place and that us as individuals need to learn what is better for us as martial artists. But to be limiting oneself to one form of training in my opinion would be like holding myself back. *



That is an awesome quote.  Good call, akja.


Robert,

I do not agree that forms teach analysis.  I think forms are used as a template for analysis, and that teaching proper analyzing is the job of the instructor.  However, I don't think a student could learn analysis from a form alone.  Otherwise, any application that someone can pull out of their form is "correct," and I'm not ready to buy into that kind of relativism.  

I think it also brings up the question "Analysis of what, specifically?"  That might be interesting to discuss.

Best,

~TT


----------



## MJS (Aug 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski _
> *That's not what forms are for.  Of course it will look silly.  Some people who use forms don't get it and then do embarassingly unrealistic demos.
> 
> However, if used properly, you can have someone attack you in a certain way to show a certain part of the form.
> ...


Oh, dont get me wrong----I think that by doing anything w/o resistance or movement is doing nothing but hurting, not helping.  Yeah, its fine for expalining the finer points, but I want to see it done full speed.  I do believe however, that you can take a move and apply it to SD.  Perfect example--short 3---that is filled with SD.  I guess what I was trying to say was, is why train something that is not practical?  Why waste time doing it, when you can be spending your time learning things that you will actually be able to use!!

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 4, 2003)

#10: Forms not only dissect actions that otherwise would be treated as monoliths, but encourage the discovery of multiple applications for the products of such analysis. In other words, forms encourage students to move beyond being permanent slaves to the teacher's demands.


----------



## James Kovacich (Aug 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *#10: Forms not only dissect actions that otherwise would be treated as monoliths, but encourage the discovery of multiple applications for the products of such analysis. In other words, forms encourage students to move beyond being permanent slaves to the teacher's demands. *



Forms require the "correct understanding" in order to "disect" these actions within the forms. Without this level of understanding it can be and sometimes is wasted movement (until a higher level of understanding is achieved).

So is that 8 yearold thats spent the last 3 years doing kata any better than an 8 yearold just starting out? How much? Why?

:asian:


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Aug 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *#10: Forms not only dissect actions that otherwise would be treated as monoliths, but encourage the discovery of multiple applications for the products of such analysis. In other words, forms encourage students to move beyond being permanent slaves to the teacher's demands. *



... many people use forms as a means to make a system TOO permanant -- slaves to a static set of techniques.  Only a good teacher can overcome this, and they are rarely the ones chosen to lead the system's next generation.

Otherwise, I totally agree.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 4, 2003)

#11: Forms provide a repeatable vocabulary that encourages students who are not brilliant beginners to learn, and encourage advanced students to constrantly re-examine their basic premises and habits of movement.


----------



## MJS (Aug 4, 2003)

Something else to keep in mind.  How many people know what they are doing in the kata?  how many Inst. know the meaning of the kata?  I've heard people ask questions to their Inst about the kata and what the moves are that they are doing, and do you know the reponse??  Because thats the way you do it!  Thats the way you do it???? What the hell kind of answer is that?

If you dont have a good Inst. you wont have a good kata.  instead, all you will have is just a pattern of preset moves and a robot doing them!

Mike


----------



## James Kovacich (Aug 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *#11: Forms provide a repeatable vocabulary that encourages students who are not brilliant beginners to learn, and encourage advanced students to constrantly re-examine their basic premises and habits of movement. *



I like that one!

:asian:


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Aug 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *...
> 
> If you dont have a good Inst. you wont have a good kata.  instead, all you will have is just a pattern of preset moves and a robot doing them!
> *



True.  But the fact is that without forms, it is easier for a teacher to make something up that looks like it will work in real life but doesn't.  How many times have we seen a room full of "robots" doing the same movement over and over?

Examples of bad teachers using forms and good teachers not using forms is just as irrelevant as the opposite.

And forms work better for some students than others.  Some need other modes of learning.


----------



## MJS (Aug 4, 2003)

Ken- I see what you are saying, but please refer to my first paragraph.  I'm saying that forms are a good thing to do, but if all you are doing is just the movements, and not having any idea as to what you are doing, then why do them?  Its no different than a SD tech.  If the Inst. just stands in front of you and says, "Do it this way." you will not have any understanding of what you are doing.  

Dont get me wrong.  I'm not totally aganst forms.  I think that there are applications that can be used, but I dont see them as the only key to being a successful fighter.

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 4, 2003)

#12: Forms map out a set of possibilities, within which meanings such as applications can be constructed.


----------



## KennethKu (Aug 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by A.R.K. _I await your factual data that supports your above conclusions.
> 
> :asian: [/B]



If you want factual data, my recommendation is to go talk to the founding members of our elite forces yourself. They can tell you in their own words what I have stated in my previous post.  I can assure that the experience will broaden your horizon beyond your imagination or the limited scope of your internet search engine.


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Aug 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *#12: Forms map out a set of possibilities, within which meanings such as applications can be constructed. *



I'm SO on your side, but you're starting to string words together more and more randomly that only sound good.  For most people, they are meaningless, and I'm not so sure about the rest of us!

How about ...

#13: Creating synergism through pro-active movement combinations

#14: Strengthening conceptual interconnectedness of application with practice regiment

#15: Preserving flow while integrating technical depth into realistic intention

Sorry, man.

:deadhorse:

Forms rock, if used properly, but it's becoming like an argument over the effective length of a jump rope at this point.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 4, 2003)

#13: Forms teach students to edit appropriately, in the course of each practitioner's attempt to understand and execute, eliminate what is unnecessary and fancy, and explore applications.


----------



## Brother John (Aug 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *#11: Forms provide a repeatable vocabulary that encourages students who are not brilliant beginners to learn, and encourage advanced students to constrantly re-examine their basic premises and habits of movement. *



Hey Bro.
Can I steal that one????

I like it, very accurate and to the point.
thanks
Your Bro.
John


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Aug 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *#13: Forms teach students to edit appropriately, in the course of each practitioner's attempt to understand and execute, eliminate what is unnecessary and fancy, and explore applications. *



Translation:

Forums teach posters to edit posts appropriately, in the course of each poster's attempt to figure out what they are typing, eliminating what is unecessary and fancy, and explore superfluous verbosity anyway.

:deadhorse:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 5, 2003)

#14: Forms teach theory, separate theory from practice, and lay the foundation for the development of praxis.


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Aug 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *#14: Forms teach theory, separate theory from practice, and lay the foundation for the development of praxis. *



Why would separating theory from practice be a GOOD thing?


----------



## twinkletoes (Aug 5, 2003)

The separation of theory and practice/application is what started the whole McDojo problem in the first place.

I know plenty of Martial Artists who can quote the theory all day long, but can't keep their hands up when I come in punching.



> the fact is that without forms, it is easier for a teacher to make something up that looks like it will work in real life but doesn't.



I don't see how forms make that harder.  Instead of practicing something with a partner, the instructor can cop out and have them practice alone.  And if the instructor is a hack (which I'm not implying of anyone here, but they're out there) he can make up illogical, impractical, or just plain stupid applications and make them practice those.  

Forms don't make bad instruction any better.

~TT


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 5, 2003)

#15: Forms ingrain postures, movements, actions, gestures, that serve later as reference standards in "real-life," "practical," situations.


----------



## MJS (Aug 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *#15: Forms ingrain postures, movements, actions, gestures, that serve later as reference standards in "real-life," "practical," situations. *



Good point!! 

Mike


----------



## A.R.K. (Aug 7, 2003)

Ken, you can do much better than that.  That wasn't a reply, it was a cop out.  If your going to spout things, at least be prepared to back them up.  Your original post was unfactual, innaccurate and plainly the opinion of someone inexperienced.

:shrug:


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Aug 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by A.R.K. _
> *Ken, you can do much better than that.  That wasn't a reply, it was a cop out.  If your going to spout things, at least be prepared to back them up.  Your original post was unfactual, innaccurate and plainly the opinion of someone inexperienced. *



Is this directed at me?  I have no idea what you are talking about.  What reply?


----------



## A.R.K. (Aug 7, 2003)

Not at all, my mistake for not clarifying.  I forgot their were more than one.  My apologies.

:asian:


----------



## Shinzu (Aug 7, 2003)

although i do like alot of MMA techniques.  i like a traditional style better.


----------



## jdam76 (Oct 8, 2004)

The way you train is going to have a huge effect on how you fight. When MMA's train, they train at nearly 100%. This shows when they fight. We train with the same techniques and movements that we will use in a real situation, and we train with them at full speed. These "deadly techniques" that are taught all over the world are never trained at full speed with a resisting opponent. I know this because I spent 7+ years in Shorin-ryu karate. It would be like a pro boxer never doing anything except shadow boxing and hitting the bag. How well is he going to do against a boxer who does both those and does heavy sparring with another person as well every day? He is going to lose. These are just my opinions, not trying to offend anyone.


----------



## KenpoNoChikara (Oct 9, 2004)

I think it's best to learn both, they both have benefits and things to learn from. Some may concentrate more on technique, others scientific principles (epak, etc) other phisical endurence. They are all good to learn, in my opinion.


----------



## Ippon Ken (Oct 28, 2004)

jdam76 said:
			
		

> The way you train is going to have a huge effect on how you fight. When MMA's train, they train at nearly 100%. This shows when they fight. We train with the same techniques and movements that we will use in a real situation, and we train with them at full speed. These "deadly techniques" that are taught all over the world are never trained at full speed with a resisting opponent. I know this because I spent 7+ years in Shorin-ryu karate. It would be like a pro boxer never doing anything except shadow boxing and hitting the bag. How well is he going to do against a boxer who does both those and does heavy sparring with another person as well every day? He is going to lose. These are just my opinions, not trying to offend anyone.


You did a style of Shorin Ryu for 7 years, but feel that somehow Arnis is better? Arnis is a TMA. I am part Filipino, lived there through my teen years, and can say the majority of pilipinos do not agree with the assertion that the FMAs are nontraditional, or that they are superior for fighting than say a good Shorin Ryuha. I know they pale in comparison to good Okinawan Karate instruction, although they do have their merits. This is what happens when certain folks take over (monopolize) MAs in the states.

What Shorin style did you do? Was it anything like Shobayashi or Shorinji Ryu? Did you know that 1-2 years of experience in those styles led to cats like Joe Lewis and Bill Wallace "inventing" american kickboxing? Real Shorin has lots of sparring with noncompliant partners. That's the beginner and journeyman aspect of it. That's the easy part. Using your mind to figure out what it is that kata trains is the key. 

That's why using the word "art" in MMAs is silly. Art denotes not only skill, but singular refinement from a legacy of proven techs taken and made your own. Get off the bandwagon and reevaluate quitting something that could have made you a unique artist, not a capitalistic bandwagoneer. How many times you gonna fight Wanderlei Silva anyhoo?

If you know a good Shorin-ka (especially a yudansha) who can't kickbox/free-spar well then he isn't doing real Shorin Ryu or he/she just sucks. That's what we did in Shorinkan (at least twice a week), hands to the face and all, but we used kata to evaluate the practitioners during grading. The kata defines the ryu. 

Maybe your teacher and dojo was whack. Peace...


----------



## SMP (Oct 28, 2004)

although you may not agree with what someone say insulting them ads little to your argument


----------



## Ippon Ken (Oct 29, 2004)

SMP said:
			
		

> although you may not agree with what someone say insulting them ads little to your argument


I don't think I intentionally insulted anyone or if I did it wasn't without provocation. Sorry if I did. Veiled Insults ("I use to take karate, but it was no good because of kata and lack of fake fighting"), or tactful derogatory statements are cowardly. I'd rather just hear "TMAs suck and I know because I'm the MMAs bomb", than some weak passive-aggressive attack. If someone gives their opinion and it offends someone else because that was the original intent ("my MMAS is better than TMAs [Shorin Ryu in this particular case]"), then I have every right to defend the counter position.

Again, if you insult a strong and smart person who doesn't wish to deal with things in a cowardly "diplomatic" fashion then you get what you wanted and deserved, right? Don't assume you can say what you want in a nice way and that you won't get checked by someone who feels you. 

BTW, Kajukenbo for the most part is an awesome style. Do you use the original Okinawan forms from Naha Te and Shuri/Tomari Te, or are they Parker synthesized forms like most Hawaiian Kempo derived arts? 

Thanks and don't back a sneaky attack and then dis someone when they defend their back. Be fair and learn to comprehend the words read, at the least.

This is my last post here, so good luck to all of you. I guess I never got my messages across to anyone here. Seems to be very common to say one things and mean another here in the US of A, and to misjudge, and say stuff that is weak is dope and stuff that is dope is weak. There really is strength in numbers on this forum like all others I've seen. The minority will never win. I guess uniqueness is for artists (wait isn't this Martial ARTS?). 

I just wanted to defend my TMAs background (20+ years of Shorinkan Shorin Ryu and Matsumura Orthodox Shorin Ryu) since many do 'Rasslin', MMAs, FMAs, schoolboy karate-American karate-Japanese/Korean karate.

I guess you can't make a dent in rocks with words. 

Go punchy-kicky, locky, chokey guys!!!! You're the next person to kick your own butt!

Pitiful. 

Laterrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.


----------



## Vadim (Oct 31, 2004)

Hey all... My preference is mixed martial arts mainly because that is what I study. I do have an appreciation for traditional martial arts and can respect the discipline that is inherent in the various traditional styles.
  I do have a gripe with my particular style because they basically cut out all forms from the program. I rather enjoyed the dynamic meditation aspect of the forms that were in our system. My style now focuses on training for various mixed martial martial art, kickboxing, and grappling tournaments.
  Don't get me wrong though I really enjoy mixing it up in the ring.

-Vadim


----------



## 5 hand swords (Nov 16, 2004)

A.R.K. said:
			
		

> I thought it might be interesting to begin a poll on members preferences in training.
> 
> For purposes of the poll I would offer the following definitions;
> 
> ...


I prefer the living over the dead.
If your living things change.

This is not to say I agree with your definitions; (above) as this is ancient wisdom.


----------



## dmdfromhamilton (Jan 5, 2005)

I voted mma though our class is structured more as traditional ma.
I voted MMA because the main art is study is less than 50 years old and was mainly mixed from 3 styles with some from 2 others and therefore under you definition is mma. But i would like to say it is not the MMA where nobody wears belts an practices forms.


----------



## scfgabe (Jan 11, 2005)

There is no perfect Martial Art that has all the elements needed for our modern self-defense needs.  The closest thing I have seen is my American Kenpo organization (AKKI) that has integrated ground and weapons curriculum.  However, I would still like to complement my Kenpo study with Ju Jitsu down the road to round off my ground fighting skills.


----------



## Bod (Jan 19, 2005)

I do judo and boxing. It's hard to say whether they are traditional or MMA by these definitions.

Judo is a fairly modern sport martial art, and the curriculum hardly varies from BJJ. Both BJJ and Judo I'd say are traditionally grounded sport arts. This is especially so given that the kata in judo are mostly practised by those who are too old to do sparring.

Boxing is also a sport art. It derives from a sport which used to be bare knuckle and involved lots of standing grappling. Some of the boxers in my gym are also gypsy bare knuckle boxers. They have the same accent as Mickey (Brad Pitt) in Snatch. Is that MMA?

Is tactical shooting MMA or Traditional? (Not that I do shootinhg, it's just for the sake of argument).

Two options on a poll are never enough.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 6, 2005)

Actually any martial art was practiced or developed for the social era of their need. Martial arts were done this way to adapt to changing era/times. Therefore, how can one separate or classify martial arts as either traditional or modern?


----------



## agatanai atsilahu (Mar 6, 2005)

An interesting point. Yet I would distinguish the two in my personal experience in this way. I think that a lot of styles that label themselves as traditional, have not adapted to some of the science and hazards of actual modern combat. In fact, I researched several dojos, and have found that many do not prepare the students to face an actual violent attack. They cover very little on the emotional and mental aspects that need to be honed as well as the physical, to be prepared for the chaos of a real attack. Also some traditionalists(not all) feel there is nothing to gain in exploring other styles or training methods, even in the face of overwhelming statistics.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 6, 2005)

So in those cases as you posted, everyone suffers.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 6, 2005)

Coming in lat ebut how do you define 'traditional'?

 The reason I ask is because someone recently told me that most TMAs were originally mostly very well rounded as 'combat' not just 'hand strikes' or 'foot strikes' or 'ground fighting' and that it's only been over time that the arts have gotten so focused.

 So a really traditional approach to TKD would include foot strikes and grappling. A modern approach to TKD would only have foot strikes; so a modern MA wanting to be well rounded could either really go traditional in all of TKD, or would just do modern TKD and then modern Judo, or whataver. Just an example.

 I tend to think there may be value in mastery of a more limited set of techniques rather than trying to learn a little of everything; but I'm not a soldier or mercenary, I'm a computer programmer, and my hours per day of MA devotion are not the same as someone who needed to live and die by it  generations ago


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 6, 2005)

So is versitility the key.


----------



## agatanai atsilahu (Mar 7, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> So in those cases as you posted, everyone suffers.


 Probably the vast majority of students, if ever attacked , would likely suffer. I know this is a bold statement, and I mean no offense to anyone. The fact still remains that if you intend to qualify yourself for self preservation, there is a heck of a lot more you need to know than mainstream schools offer. I am a combat veteran, had experiences with prison inmates, and work closely with law enforcement in my area, Ive seen many a martial artist go down hard, because they had ne idea what to expect. This not only goes for what to expect from the attacker, but also from yourself. I know this debate goes on quite a bit, and I dont claim to be superior to anyone, but I know how to survive, and it takes more than what the traditional type school setup (in most cases) has to offer.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 7, 2005)

Yes, but the main emphasis of martial arts is that they were developed per the era of their need. Martial arts (for defense) have to change or they could find difficulty to overcome new changes in new eras/societies.

If a traditional, >gasp<, martial art does not do this, perhaps they are more into the preservation of a particular traditonal martial art, as a art form?

In a analogy of table/dinning ware. Woodworking. Classic music. Antique restorations...etc.

One can have traditional, as long as there are practical, or updated, areas to be studied/included, per future eras.


----------



## agatanai atsilahu (Mar 7, 2005)

Agreed, as lond as preservation of your life remains more important than preservation of art.


----------



## K831 (Dec 10, 2009)

Where is the option for "traditional SD techniques, MMA training methodology"?


----------



## Milt G. (Dec 12, 2009)

K831 said:


> Where is the option for "traditional SD techniques, MMA training methodology"?


 
Hello...

I think if you apply traditional techniques to a MMA training methodology, you are "riding the line" between the two.  Not one, or the other.  I think the "poll" wanted you to commit to one way.  Polls are like that.  Rather unfair. 

Personally, I think MMA techniques are most complimentary to MMA method training.  And traditional techniques most complimentary to same.  Of course this is just my opinion, and I cannot be considered an MMA practitioner in any sense of the definition.  Either one can be applied in a sporting or self-defense situation though, with minor adjustments.

Just a long time practitioners attempt to make sense of a senseless world...  Now, does that make sense???  

Thank you,
Milt G.


----------



## kingkong89 (Dec 14, 2009)

Both i prefer to stick to tradition but also like some of the aspects of the mma style


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 28, 2009)

I take my training via the MMA variety, for lack of a better term.......embracing what works for me, and discarding what does not.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Dec 28, 2009)

I apologize if this has already been brought up, I read the first 7 pages of this thread, but I'm running short on time and wanted to put in my 2 cents.

I have trained in one martial art for 24 years, and I have had the opportunity to train with martial artists from other martial arts.  I DO encorporate what works for me from these other arts into my martial art.  I think it would be foolish to abandon something that works.

My biggest issue with my LIMITED experience with MMA (sports, not eclectic MA) is not from a fighting or self-defense aspect.  The primary goal of my martial art is personal development, a.k.a. making oneself a better person.  This encompasses physical fitness and being able to defend oneself.. . but it also deals with mental and spiritual development as well.  Self-respect, self-discipline, loyalty, etc.. .

I confess I do not know how most MMA gyms train, but what I see on the television represents a lack of humility and respect for their fellow competitors.  If any of my students represented themselves like that, they would be in for one whale of a tongue lashing.


----------



## Thomas Henderson (Dec 30, 2009)

Going back to the statement of "complete",  I beleive that you are never complete in your martial arts training.  Everyday should be an ongoing lesson.  Just when you think you have seen everything under the sun one of your students can throw a real curve ball at you and cause you to think.  I think thats what sets teachers and students aside is that we don't need someone continually giving us instruction rather we should be able to find the lesson for ourselves in whatever we see in daily life.  Humbleness is one of the core charecteristics of any true martial artists and believe yourself to be complete and not in any need of any additional learning proves that the said persons mind is closed.  I always try to learn something from the lowest of students or the highest of Grand Masters.  Thank You for your time.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 31, 2009)

SahBumNimRush said:


> My biggest issue with my LIMITED experience with MMA (sports, not eclectic MA) is not from a fighting or self-defense aspect.  The primary goal of my martial art is personal development, a.k.a. making oneself a better person.  This encompasses physical fitness and being able to defend oneself.. . but it also deals with mental and spiritual development as well.  Self-respect, self-discipline, loyalty, etc.. .
> 
> I confess I do not know how most MMA gyms train, but what I see on the television represents a lack of humility and respect for their fellow competitors.  If any of my students represented themselves like that, they would be in for one whale of a tongue lashing.



MMA gyms are run more like Boxing gyms than dojos.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Dec 31, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> MMA gyms are run more like Boxing gyms than dojos.


 
I honestly have no problem with that inherently.  It is purely symantics with MMA being considered a martial "ART."  I agree that MMA is most definitely a MARTIAL/combat sport, and I will concede that there is certainly an art to executing the techniques utilized in the ring.  But from that stance then all sports at the elite level are some what of an artform.  

I do not knock MMA at all, it is just that alot of TMA people are trying to compare what they do in their training halls to what takes place in an MMA gym.  You can't exactly compare apples with oranges, but you have to admit they are both fruit.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 2, 2010)

SahBumNimRush said:


> I honestly have no problem with that inherently.  It is purely symantics with MMA being considered a martial "ART."  I agree that MMA is most definitely a MARTIAL/combat sport, and I will concede that there is certainly an art to executing the techniques utilized in the ring.  But from that stance then all sports at the elite level are some what of an artform.


 True enough.



SahBumNimRush said:


> I do not knock MMA at all, it is just that alot of TMA people are trying to compare what they do in their training halls to what takes place in an MMA gym.  You can't exactly compare apples with oranges, but you have to admit they are both fruit.



TMA's are following an eastern martial tradition that is, generally, hierarchical and regimented, and wrapped in eastern religious traditions, with the students revering the master, again in east asian tradition, and doing their best to perfect a system considered perfect in itself, very much in keeping with the Confucianism (as well as Taoism and Buddhism) that the cultures that inspired them were rooted in.   

Confucianism, in particular, is responsible for the reverence and loyalty that the masters are given, and the reverence for past and tradition, and ritual.  In that sense, what is taught by the master is to be considered perfect and complete, and it is the students responsibility to perfect themselves to that end.  This is especially true of martial traditions from Japan, China and Korea.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism

MMA, despite influences from the eastern tradition, very much carries on a western martial arts tradition going back to the ancient greeks.  In the western tradition (see also: 'Classical' and 'Greek'), individual excellence, rather than reverence for the past and high esteemed masters, is the order of the day.  No 'master' is revered, rather, individuals who achieve excellence are reverred.  The past is not considered perfect, and what exists can be improved.  In fact, I suspect that the Pancrationists of ancient greeks would feel right at home at Pat Miletich's gym.

So, in a sense, the divide we see between MMA and TMA is really emblematic of a larger, east/west divide in our approach to martial arts training.  What many TMA practioners see as the 'disrespect' of MMA, is really nothing more than a continuation of this divide, and disdain for the revered ritual of eastern tradition, and adoption of the classical western tradition of excellence in action.........what the greeks referred to as 'Arete'.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arete


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 2, 2010)

After thinking about what I wrote above, i'd have to say that, though I have trained both in TMA (Specifically Judo) and western training schools (MMA), all in all, I feel far more comfortable in a Boxing Gym, MMA school, and the like than in a Dojo.......it suits my character and temperament better.......my interest is purely in the practical and pragmatic, and while I respect the accomplishments and abilities of many instructors, it doesn't rise to the level of 'fealty'.......if what my instructor is teaching is good, but someone across the street has something pretty darn useful, i'm not going to ignore it out of some Confucian-esque loyalty to master and tradition.......I simply don't believe any 'master' has or could put together a 'perfect' system that I need to study for the rest of my life to achieve personal perfection.......even if he was a world-class martial artist, he didn't have my particular size, shape, strengths and weaknesses, so my question is a personal one of Greek 'Arete'.

Maybe we should call MMA arts 'Martial Aretes'?  

Virtus et Honor


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 2, 2010)

sgt mac,

I respect and appreciate your insight.  My instructor is the poster child of the Confucian Patriarch.  However, we are encouraged to take ANYTHING that works and ecorporate it into our repetoire.  I believe the reverence you speak of, is misplaced in many training halls.  IMHO, it is much like the military, you HAVE TO SHOW RESPECT to your superiors.  That doesnt mean you have to respect them, or place them on a pedastal.  

I doubt anyone in the military believes their superiors are the end all, be all in military tactics, etc.. .  But they got that rank for a reason, most of the time by hard work and experience (even though, both in TMA and military, there are many that are promoted for political or other less deserving reasons).

I agree with you that no one person can hold the one and only insight into the "perfect" system.  There are many things from both an MMA and a TMA training style I very much appreciate, and there are parts that I do not.  In the TMA training hall, the misplaced emphasis placed on rank (too much idolization rather than proper respect) and too much rigidity in mindset (anything that works should be tested and encorporated) are two things, generally speaking, that create alot of problems.  However, in a good TMA school, emphasis is placed on training the person as a whole, mental and physical.  To use your example of "arete," to strive to be the BEST PERSON you can be, not just the best fighter. 

In MMA, I have not seen that, but I admit my exposure to the MMA world as a whole is quite limited.  I really like that you are judged on your ability, and there is no idolization of instructors.  

Now if I could just figure out a way a marry the best of the two and ditch the baggage, HAHA.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2010)

SahBumNimRush said:


> I apologize if this has already been brought up, I read the first 7 pages of this thread, but I'm running short on time and wanted to put in my 2 cents.
> 
> I have trained in one martial art for 24 years, and I have had the opportunity to train with martial artists from other martial arts. I DO encorporate what works for me from these other arts into my martial art. I think it would be foolish to abandon something that works.
> 
> ...


 

What you see on television is television performers directed by people out to make money. Bad behaviour pays in television terms.
The majority of MMA fighters and people who train are far from what you will see on television, would you say the professional wrestling performers are the same as the Olympic wrestlers? The MMA people I know are actually very humble and sportsmanlike, they will happily learn martial arts anywhere. 
How many people on these reality television shows are actually like your neighbours friends and family? 
The gyms and clubs here are welcoming to anyone, more so than many TMA places, they are informal yes but very friendly. They train with respect for each other and also fight the same way. I have seen great sportsmanship in fights as well as humour.
I do get angry when people base everything they think about MMA on what is seen on television especially American television. The UFC is worth over $1bn so they will keep on doing whatever brings the money in.... to the detriment of real MMA.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 3, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> What you see on television is television performers directed by people out to make money. Bad behaviour pays in television terms.
> The majority of MMA fighters and people who train are far from what you will see on television, would you say the professional wrestling performers are the same as the Olympic wrestlers? The MMA people I know are actually very humble and sportsmanlike, they will happily learn martial arts anywhere.
> How many people on these reality television shows are actually like your neighbours friends and family?
> The gyms and clubs here are welcoming to anyone, more so than many TMA places, they are informal yes but very friendly. They train with respect for each other and also fight the same way. I have seen great sportsmanship in fights as well as humour.
> I do get angry when people base everything they think about MMA on what is seen on television especially American television. The UFC is worth over $1bn so they will keep on doing whatever brings the money in.... to the detriment of real MMA.


I really think it's important to distinguish between MMA the sport, and MMA in the larger sense, which is the blending of whatever styles work, such as we see in JKD and other 'arts'.........what ends up happening is we end up talking about the later, and then it immediately shifts back to making a point about the first.........of course that's the danger with having an all-encompassing term, that also doubles as a specific reference to a specific sport.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2010)

Here MMA is the sport of fighting in the ring/cage and when we talk of other styles being mixed for SD etc we talk of cross training, I think we don't have as much confusion as seems to be in the States. Here MMA is understood as the stuff one does to fight in the cage/ring and not anything else. The use of capital letters I think gives the indication that it's the sport not a blending of styles for any other purpose.
I've never heard the term mixed martial arts here used to describe anything other than the style used for fighting. If someone says they do MMA here, it's accepted that it's for fighting not just the mixing of styles, there's no wider meaning here. For us there is just MMA, so I can't click on 'an MMA discipline' as there is only one as far as we are concerned. I would suspect that people are using the MMA label to make themselves either more fachionable or more profitable.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 4, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Here MMA is the sport of fighting in the ring/cage and when we talk of other styles being mixed for SD etc we talk of cross training, I think we don't have as much confusion as seems to be in the States. Here MMA is understood as the stuff one does to fight in the cage/ring and not anything else. The use of capital letters I think gives the indication that it's the sport not a blending of styles for any other purpose.
> I've never heard the term mixed martial arts here used to describe anything other than the style used for fighting. If someone says they do MMA here, it's accepted that it's for fighting not just the mixing of styles, there's no wider meaning here. For us there is just MMA, so I can't click on 'an MMA discipline' as there is only one as far as we are concerned. I would suspect that people are using the MMA label to make themselves either more fachionable or more profitable.



I get your point, but this very thread illustrates the confusion.......it started as a discussion of MMA as cross-training........but it keeps jumping back in forth.  The original post, however, defined the terms for the purposes of the discussion.



A.R.K. said:


> I thought it might be interesting to begin a poll on members preferences in training.
> 
> For purposes of the poll I would offer the following definitions;
> 
> ...



The reality is that the sport reflects the cross-training mindset, and started out that way, not the other way around.........so the 'sport' is little different than discussing boxing for sport or self-defense........


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2010)

_*"MMA* 

A discipline probably having it's foundation in large part on a traditional style/system, but has since branched out. Utilizing concepts and techniqiues from other disciplines to reinforce or replace one's associated with the foundational structure.

These definitions are not absolutes of course. If you would like to add to, delete from, or offer and alternate definition please do so.

Thanks for participating."_


However the OP has said to delete, change etc his terms. To us in the UK there is only one definitition of MMA and that's as I said, the stuff you use to fight with in the cage/ring, there isn't any other definition here. MMA isn't cross training as such, it's the use of different martial arts to compete under MMA rules, nothing else.

We don't see people who cross train as having an 'MMA mindset' we see them as cross training, something that has been done for a long time. A conversation on MMA here would consist of talking about fighters, training for fights etc, there's nothing to separate 'sport MMA' from 'MMA in a wider sense', there simply isn't that wider sense. MMA is fighting in competition, training in multiple martial arts for SD, pleasure etc is cross training. Two diffferent concepts.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 4, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> _*"MMA*
> 
> A discipline probably having it's foundation in large part on a traditional style/system, but has since branched out. Utilizing concepts and techniqiues from other disciplines to reinforce or replace one's associated with the foundational structure.
> 
> ...



Semantics........The OP defined the term at the beginning of the conversation.........it can deteriorate in to a debate over terms, but the accepted definition within the context of the thread is one defined in the first post.

The OP gave two choices.........training in a 'Traditional Discipline'.......and 'MMA'........'MMA' within that context would be presumed to be anything ELSE not considered 'TMA'..........one might debate the term itself, but that, again, would be mere semantics.

Given that the UFC and the like began as a contest between competing martial arts, not as a sport in it's own right, there certainly IS an 'MMA' in a wider sense.......the results of those early UFC's indicated that certain blendings of arts (BJJ, Wrestling, Muay Thai, Boxing, etc) worked better in that format, and likely, in the wider world.........the fact that OTHER Hybrid martial art styles (JKD, for example) came to the same conclusions long before that only reinforces the idea of an MMA in a wider sense.

Now I could be biased since I discovered the UFC in 1993, long before the current 'Sport' hype, and so I never really made such hard distinctions......I only observed that some techniques seem to work better in a variety of situations than others.  Subsequent to that the training became more specialized, but that doesn't invalidate a variety of conclusions that have been arrived at.........rather, I looked at what was manifested in the ring as a merely following the logical conclusions many practioners of 'Hybrid styles' came to LONG BEFORE the words 'MMA' or 'UFC' came in to existence..........it's the nature of the thing itself.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2010)

Hardly semantics when I'm telling you a fact on how something is looked at here is it? To you a rubber is a condom, to us it's an eraser, hardly semantics, that's what I'm trying to explain to what MMA _is over here_, it's simply not the same as you have it. Neither is right or wrong, I'm just trying to tell you how it is with us and why our way of seeing it is different from you which makes discussing it difficult.  The OP anyhow said feel free to redefine.
The starting point of MMA for Americans is the UFC, outside the States however it's different. There were 'proper' MMA fights in various locations well before the UFC started it's 'MMA' fights as such, so we are talking  from totally different view points. MMA as it is now in the UFC has been around for longer outside the USA so our frames of reference are also different. We've had Vale Tudo fighters here for a long while, competing in Japan, Russia, Brazil and Holland. A friend of mine was fighting MMA in a cage in Russia at the beginning of the nineties, didn't do well mind but thats a different story.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 4, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Hardly semantics when I'm telling you a fact on how something is looked at here is it? To you a rubber is a condom, to us it's an eraser, hardly semantics, that's what I'm trying to explain to what MMA _is over here_, it's simply not the same as you have it. Neither is right or wrong, I'm just trying to tell you how it is with us and why our way of seeing it is different from you which makes discussing it difficult.  The OP anyhow said feel free to redefine.
> The starting point of MMA for Americans is the UFC, outside the States however it's different. There were 'proper' MMA fights in various locations well before the UFC started it's 'MMA' fights as such, so we are talking  from totally different view points. MMA as it is now in the UFC has been around for longer outside the USA so our frames of reference are also different. We've had Vale Tudo fighters here for a long while, competing in Japan, Russia, Brazil and Holland. A friend of mine was fighting MMA in a cage in Russia at the beginning of the nineties, didn't do well mind but thats a different story.



'Hardly semantics when I'm telling you a fact on how something is looked at here is it? To you a rubber is a condom, to us it's an eraser, hardly semantics'

That's the very definition of the word 'semantics'......when the debate becomes how a word or words are defined.  

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/semantics


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 4, 2010)

I will agree that Vale Tudo has been around since the early 1920's, but it was never called MMA.  The term Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) was coined in 1994 by UFC commentator, Jeff Blatnick (Greco-Roman Wrestler and Olympic Gold Medalist).

  I have to agree that the arguement put forth by Tez3 is truly one of semantics.  Although it is important to note that as a competition, mixed martial arts competitions have been going on LONG before the UFC, which alot of people don't realize.

  But as I understand it, until quite recently, these were all Mixed Style Competitions, not the homogenous stand up brawling mixed with wrestling/BJJ.


----------



## REkonEyeZ (Jan 4, 2010)

I love mma- but def traditional - more fun not to mention safer


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2010)

SahBumNimRush said:


> I will agree that Vale Tudo has been around since the early 1920's, but it was never called MMA. The term Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) was coined in 1994 by UFC commentator, Jeff Blatnick (Greco-Roman Wrestler and Olympic Gold Medalist).
> 
> I have to agree that the arguement put forth by Tez3 is truly one of semantics. Although it is important to note that as a competition, mixed martial arts competitions have been going on LONG before the UFC, which alot of people don't realize.
> 
> But as I understand it, until quite recently, these were all Mixed Style Competitions, not the homogenous stand up brawling mixed with wrestling/BJJ.


 
Whatever, trying to explain how things are viewed in other countries is obviously a waste of time as only the UFC experience is the one that counts and if I tell you that what we do isn't brawling or wrestling that's a waste of time too I assume. No British fighter I know is a wrestler, most are graded BJJers or graded Judoka but that doesn't fit the UFC profile so can't be right.
The competitions we had here and in Europe were mixed martial arts ( whoever coined the phrase) in that they weren't mixed style comps, they were as you see us doing it now, BJJ/Judo AND standup, usually karate, KD or MT plus whatever works from other styles. You don't have to believe me as it again doesn't fit the UFC profile because they must be the only ones who invented fighting like this. Way back in English history you will find fights that combine boxing and grappling, long before Queensberry rules were invented.
If I explain to you the offside rule in soccer you would call it semantics because it's not American football..because both use the word football, our MMA is to soccer what yours is to American football, that's all I'm trying to explain but have it your way, you win.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 4, 2010)

Tez3, I was unaware we were competing, let alone that I won ;p

 I THOUGHT I was, in fact, agreeing with you on some of the points that you made.  I will attempt to make my statements more clear.

I think maybe you're getting caught up in the "semantics" comment.  That wasn't a stab, just an observation.  Your examples of "rubber" and "football" are both similarly a case of semantics.  

I posted above in agreement that mixed style competitions ( INCLUDING VALE TUDO) have been going on long before UFC.  But I think it a bit disrespectful to assume that people in the U.S. don't have any idea of what goes on outside of our country, since I am aware of many such competitions both current and historical.  

So let me try this again.. . (with the help of my friend wiki)

*  Mixed martial arts*_ (*MMA*) is a full contact combat sport that allows a wide variety of fighting techniques, from a mixture of martial arts traditions and non-traditions, to be used in competitions. The rules allow the use of striking and grappling techniques, both while standing and on the ground. Such competitions allow martial artists of different backgrounds to compete._

_  The roots of mixed martial arts can be traced back to various mixed style contests that took place throughout Europe, Japan and the Pacific Rim during the late 1800's. Modern MMA competition emerged in 1993 with the founding of the Ultimate Fighting Championships, although professional MMA events had been held in Japan by Shooto starting back in 1989. Originally organized with the intention of finding the most effective martial arts for real unarmed combat situations, competitors were pitted against one another with minimal rules for safety.  The name mixed martial arts was coined by one of the developers of these rules, Jeff Blatnick, a former Greco-Roman wrestler and Olympic gold medalist.  Following these changes, the sport has seen increased popularity with pay per view (rivaling boxing and professional wrestling)._

_Different forms of unorganized, no-rules, unarmed combat predate history, civilization, and the human species itself (apes have been observed engaging in hand-to-hand combats), but the earliest documented, organized, minimal-rules fighting event was the ancient Greek pankration, which was introduced into the Olympic Games in 648 B.C.  Greek pankration later inspired the more violent Etruscan and Roman pancratium, an event showcased at the Roman Collesium.  Even as late as the Early Middle Ages, statues were put up in Rome and other cities to honor remarkable pankratiasts of Rome._

_No-holds-barred events reportedly took place in the late 1800s when wrestlers representing a huge range of fighting styles, including various catch wrestling styles, Greco-Roman wrestling and many others met in tournaments and music-hall challenge matches throughout Europe. In the USA the first major encounter between a boxer and a wrestler in modern times took place in 1887 when John Sullivan, then heavyweight world boxing champion, entered the ring with his trainer, Greco-Roman wrestling champion William Muldoon, and was slammed to the mat in two minutes. _

_The next publicized encounter occurred in the late 1890s when future heavyweight boxing champion Bob Fitzsimmons took on European Greco-Roman wrestling champion Ernest Roeber. Reportedly, Roeber suffered a fractured cheekbone in this bout, but was able to get Fitzsimmons down on the mat, where he applied an armlock and made the boxer submit. In Europe, around the 19th century, the Italian Giovanni Raicevich, skilled in Greco-Roman wrestling defeated Akitaro Ono, a Japanese heavyweight fighter skilled in Jujitsu, Judo, and Sumo throwing him on the mat by one-arm shoulder throw. In 1936, heavyweight boxing contender Kingfish Levinsky and veteran professional wrestler Ray Steele competed in a mixed match, which Steele won in 35 seconds._

_ Another early example of mixed martial arts combat was the martial art of Bartitsu, founded in London in 1899, which was the first martial art known to have combined Asian and European fighting styles, and which saw mixed style contests throughout England, pitting European and Japanese champions against representatives of various European wrestling styles.  Mixed style contests such as boxing vs. jujutsu were popular entertainment throughout Europe, Japan and the Pacific Rim during the early 1900s. In Japan these contests were known as merikan, from the Japanese slang for "American [fighting]". Merikan contests were fought under a variety of rules including points decision, best of three throws or knockdowns, and victory via knockout or submission._

_After the popularity of professional wrestling waned after World War I it split into two genres: :"shoot", in which the fighters actually competed, and "show", which evolved into modern professional wrestling (WWF, WWE)._

_In the late 1960s to early 1970s the concept of combining the elements of multiple martial arts was popularized in America by Bruce Lee via his system and philosophy of Jeet Kune Do.  Lee believed that "the best fighter is not a Boxer, Karate or Judo man. The best fighter is someone who can adapt to any style." In 2004 UFC President Dana White would call Lee the "father of mixed martial arts."_

So, although in the UK appearantly MMA is only cage fighting (as you state, I have nothing to base that on other than your statement), I believe that Sgt Mac was only attempting to point out the heritage that has evolved what is considered MMA today.  MMA is, by definition, an extremely broad variety of systems with a similar principle or approach.  

I should mention that I am not an MMA fighter in the cage fighting sense of the word.  I am a traditionally trained Moo Duk Kwan practicioner, but I have trained with other martial artists and have adopted anything that I can that works for me.  So I suppose many would say I am not MMA and some would say that I am.  It depends on your idea of what MMA is NOW, and THAT IS A DEBATE OF SEMANTICS.  And I don't believe that was the intent of the OP.

Respectfully,

Benjamin


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2010)

So it's semantics if I tell you what something is called or seen as here rather than just information? I think you also don't understand too is that when people here start with the semantics card it's seen as a hostile and negative answer to what someone was saying. A person makes a statement and another answers 'oh that's semantics' thats seen as insulting. It's like the teeenage 'whatever', not conducive to good discussion.

All I was doing was offering information on how MMA is seen *here *nothing more and I get attacked  as if I were lying, complete with Wiki. I'm not saying other people aren't doing MMA, I was merely saying that *here* MMA is only the one thing and you have all taken it as an attack rather than an interesting piece of information. I don't feel inclined in the least to share information about my country or it's habits with people who attack you for telling them about it. It comes over as arrogant I'm afraid.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 5, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> So it's semantics if I tell you what something is called or seen as here rather than just information? I think you also don't understand too is that when people here start with the semantics card it's seen as a hostile and negative answer to what someone was saying. A person makes a statement and another answers 'oh that's semantics' thats seen as insulting. It's like the teeenage 'whatever', not conducive to good discussion.
> 
> All I was doing was offering information on how MMA is seen *here *nothing more and I get attacked  as if I were lying, complete with Wiki. I'm not saying other people aren't doing MMA, I was merely saying that *here* MMA is only the one thing and you have all taken it as an attack rather than an interesting piece of information. I don't feel inclined in the least to share information about my country or it's habits with people who attack you for telling them about it. It comes over as arrogant I'm afraid.



You're offering how the term 'MMA' is defined there.......which is fine........but it's still by definition semantics.

What you're telling me is the 'CONNOTATION' (the subjective interpretation) of MMA where you live......that's fine, but what we're doing here is using the LITERAL DEFINITION, the 'DENOTATION' (the objective definition) of the words 'MIXED......MARTIAL.......ARTS'.

What we are talking about here is (Pick your word) Hybrid Martial Arts, Mixed Martial Training, whatever you want to call it.

By very definitions of the words 'Mixed Martial Artist' one who mixes martial arts together IS a 'Mixed Martial Artist'.......if one is a 'Mixed Martial Arts Fighter' one is competing in CONTESTS of 'Mixed Martial Arts' (Professional and amateur), or SPORT MMA.........lets not get all tied up in to words..........for the purposes of this discussion, we'll use the broader definition............when we're talking about the sport we'll call it Sport MMA.

It's really no different than talking about 'Sport Boxing' versus 'Boxing for self-defense'........both are boxing.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 5, 2010)

sahbumnimrush said:


> _in the late 1960s to early 1970s the concept of combining the elements of multiple martial arts was popularized in america by bruce lee via his system and philosophy of jeet kune do.  Lee believed that "the best fighter is not a boxer, karate or judo man. The best fighter is someone who can adapt to any style." in 2004 ufc president dana white would call lee the "father of mixed martial arts."_
> 
> so, although in the uk appearantly mma is only cage fighting (as you state, i have nothing to base that on other than your statement), i believe that sgt mac was only attempting to point out the heritage that has evolved what is considered mma today.  Mma is, by definition, an extremely broad variety of systems with a similar principle or approach.
> 
> ...


 exactly!


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 5, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> So it's semantics if I tell you what something is called or seen as here rather than just information? I think you also don't understand too is that when people here start with the semantics card it's seen as a hostile and negative answer to what someone was saying. A person makes a statement and another answers 'oh that's semantics' thats seen as insulting. It's like the teeenage 'whatever', not conducive to good discussion.
> 
> All I was doing was offering information on how MMA is seen *here *nothing more and I get attacked as if I were lying, complete with Wiki. I'm not saying other people aren't doing MMA, I was merely saying that *here* MMA is only the one thing and you have all taken it as an attack rather than an interesting piece of information. I don't feel inclined in the least to share information about my country or it's habits with people who attack you for telling them about it. It comes over as arrogant I'm afraid.


 

I seem to have gotten, unintentionally I might add, under your skin Tez3.  This was certainly not my intention.  I admit you have way more experience on MT than I do, but I have read the rules and alot of the forum posts on here.  I have not read anywhere that "the semantics" card, as you put it, is an inflammatory remark.  I did not mean it as a "teenage whatever" or an attack in the slightest, I was merely adding my opinion to you and Sgt's post.  

  I remember reading, when I first joined, a statement about assuming that the intent of what members post is good in nature.  Certainly things can be misunderstood on here since it is only text, and one cannot see the person's face or hear the inflection in their voice.  

  Everyone is free to their opinion, which is a wonderful thing indeed!  If you feel you were attacked, it is your right to feel that way.  However, it was not my intent to attack you or any other MT member, and from reading Sgt's posts, they seem respectful as well.. .

OKAY, I'm done explaining myself, back to the OP


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 5, 2010)

Since we are speaking of training preference of MMA vs. TMA.. .

For those who mix it up a bit, i.e. MMA, what "styles" do you mix?  What do you find works best Standing?  Clinching?  On the ground?

I am very curious, since I have little to no experience on the ground.. . only in standing and the clinch.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2010)

SahBumNimRush said:


> I seem to have gotten, unintentionally I might add, under your skin Tez3. This was certainly not my intention. I admit you have way more experience on MT than I do, but I have read the rules and alot of the forum posts on here. I have not read anywhere that "the semantics" card, as you put it, is an inflammatory remark. I did not mean it as a "teenage whatever" or an attack in the slightest, I was merely adding my opinion to you and Sgt's post.
> 
> I remember reading, when I first joined, a statement about assuming that the intent of what members post is good in nature. Certainly things can be misunderstood on here since it is only text, and one cannot see the person's face or hear the inflection in their voice.
> 
> ...


 

*It has just occurred to me that when I say 'here' you do know I mean the UK not MT?*
 The use of the word 'semantics' here will start an argument most likely, it certainly did when I was at uni and when I'm explaining what MMA is I mean what it means to us, the Brits not what it means on MT? That's why I can't understand why you are all going on about semantics and  why you all find it difficult to understand I don't know what you mean when you say 'MMA in a broader sense' because I have no experience of it as being anything other than the way its seen in this country.
It's as frustrating as hell because all I'm saying is that in the UK, MMA is the cage/ring fighting thing/style/art and if you do other martial arts together we call it cross training. Thats *all* I'm saying. To us it's black and white. It's the way we've label things, we know what we mean, If you training several martial arts together for fighting in competition it's MMA, if you train several martial arts for fun/SD/self developement its cross training. It's how we understand things here, I'm not saying it's the right way or the wrong way, it just is. So when someone says ' I do MMA' we ask about their fights, when they say they cross train, we ask what arts they do, how they train etc. If someone says they are a cagefighter we ignore them because we know they aren't any such thing, that's a fantasy label lol.
The reason I said that about what MMA is in this country is so that you'd know I had no experience of what MMA _is to you_ instead I find my posts totally misunderstood. I was offering you an insight ( hoping to have that returned) into our culture not criticising or saying the way you do things was wrong. The conversation should have gone "over here in the UK, MMA is known just as fighting for competitions" Answer, "mmm that's interesting (or boring - up to you) here we think of it as ............

Instead of enlightening and *on topic* conversation I've been treated to lectures and dictionary definitions. You could have told me so much about how you train instead I got a headache, not a lot of fun after a 12 hour shift in blizzards.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 5, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> *It has just occurred to me that when I say 'here' you do know I mean the UK not MT?*
> The use of the word 'semantics' here will start an argument most likely, it certainly did when I was at uni and when I'm explaining what MMA is I mean what it means to us, the Brits not what it means on MT? That's why I can't understand why you are all going on about semantics and why you all find it difficult to understand I don't know what you mean when you say 'MMA in a broader sense' because I have no experience of it as being anything other than the way its seen in this country.
> It's as frustrating as hell because all I'm saying is that in the UK, MMA is the cage/ring fighting thing/style/art and if you do other martial arts together we call it cross training. Thats *all* I'm saying. To us it's black and white. It's the way we've label things, we know what we mean, If you training several martial arts together for fighting in competition it's MMA, if you train several martial arts for fun/SD/self developement its cross training. It's how we understand things here, I'm not saying it's the right way or the wrong way, it just is. So when someone says ' I do MMA' we ask about their fights, when they say they cross train, we ask what arts they do, how they train etc. If someone says they are a cagefighter we ignore them because we know they aren't any such thing, that's a fantasy label lol.
> The reason I said that about what MMA is in this country is so that you'd know I had no experience of what MMA _is to you_ instead I find my posts totally misunderstood. I was offering you an insight ( hoping to have that returned) into our culture not criticising or saying the way you do things was wrong. The conversation should have gone "over here in the UK, MMA is known just as fighting for competitions" Answer, "mmm that's interesting (or boring - up to you) here we think of it as ............
> ...


 

Okay, I hear what you're saying   To keep it on topic, what styles to you blend in your MMA?  As I posted previously, I have very little experience on the ground.  I know just about everyone in MMA around these parts practice BJJ, but honestly I know very little about it.  What do you use standing and in clench?  I honestly have learned in this thread alone, that there is much more to cage fighting MMA than you see on the television.  I would gladly put the misunderstanding behind us in order to get to the more interesting, more important, and certainly more fun subject.. .

Personally, I've never stepped into a cage.  I'm a doc and I can't afford to break a hand or finger, as my hands are my livelihood.  I get heat from my wife everytime I even break concrete with my hands, HAHA!  I have fought in full contact stand up fights, but never anything that involved grappling.  I am traditionally trained in Moo Duk Kwan (TKD/TSD) for the past 24 years.  I have "cross trained" in Shorei Ryu, Kung Fu (only for staff fighting), Bando, and kajukenbo.  My cross training really just boiled down to working out with friends who were in these arts.  I've never taken any formal classes outside of the Moo Duk Kwan, but I've learned alot from training with other martial artists and incorporated techniques I've found that work into my own style.  To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what category this fits into anywhere (although I'm now aware that in the UK it is most definitely cross training!).  

As far as spectating is concerned, I don't really enjoy watching the ground fighting, which is probably why I know so little about that aspect of fighting.  I would very much like to learn more, but it doesn't make it any more entertaining watching two guys in tights man handling each other on the ground (again, my personal opinion, no offense meant in that).  

There are a couple of local MMA fighters that are considering coming in to our training hall to learn more about the kicking aspect of cagefighting.  I'm really excited about this, since it opens an opportunity to "cross train" with some grapplers, at the same time passing on my art of head kicking 

Okay, I'll stop rambling, *tag* you're it.. . hehe


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 6, 2010)

For standup most of us are TMA people lol, we use karate, TKD and MT. there'll be Aikido,CMA and anything else we can use in there too. fighters here will travel around to train with different people here and we have quite a few seminars. Neil Adams probably one of the best Judokas in the world has seminars for MMA fighters which are fantastic.fighters like Ian Freeman (UFC) and Rosi Sexton (Bodog) will also have training sessions for people. We are sponsored by Fairtex so get to send people out to Thailand and all they pay is their fairs.
 For ground work it's BJJ and Judo. It's like physical chess and once you know what to look for it's engrossing. I don't know if you play pool or snooker? It's like that, you are working a couple of moves ahead, planning out how to get that submission. You do one move knowing it will take your opponent into a certain position which will allow you to do another move, if get out of it you have you next move already planned. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3vY...800B17E0&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=50

Leigh fought Genki Sudo in the first UFC in London, Jean is Brazilian, I have to say there is no friendship between these two, they've have a couple of rematches. The ref is Grant Waterman, a kickboxer who has also competed in MMA way back in the day.

I'd like to point out that Leigh has a first class honours degree in electrical engineering, his day job and Grant is a prof at Portsmouth University, I know many think that MMA is for uneducated thugs but  they are the norm here. Here's Leigh teaching


----------

