A MT argument while at work
- Thread starter Hand Sword
- Start date
Kacey said:
Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it appears that you are saying that those that practice TMA or MMA will be only as effective or less effective in a streetfight than the 'average Joe'.
Things such as balance, speed, quickness, flexibility, and power tend to be improved in training, so I don't see how training in TMA or MMA could do anything but help a person that ends up in such a situtation, independent of their understanding of any rules, or lack thereof.
No, I am saying that someone who trains with the intent of learning to defend themselves, with an instructor who understands street defense, will have a better chance of defending themselves regardless of the style they train in - because no matter what style one trains in, no matter how realistic the training, people must understand that the street is different. This is the part that many people miss when attempting to compare arts through tournament competition. Sorry if my previous post was unclear; I knew what I meant to say, but didn't get it all down in the post.
Exactly. To say that in the UFC contests the traditionalists always lost - well, you've got to take a hard look at the event itself.
legendary throughout that nation. Now, I try to keep fairly
current on these things but I never heard of this guy-
*A top kenpo "master" from the U.S. The guy had to weigh in at
least at 400 lbs. I was surprised he didn't roll out onto the mat.
If I'd been a kenpo practitioner, I'd have been wondering who on
earth this guy was? Not surprisingly, he lost...
*One of the top kung-fu competitors in America...a young
Caucasian kid. Now, at the time, I was Nat'L Chairman of the
AAU Kung-Fu Division which was the largest kung-fu organization
in the country. I'd never seen or heard of this fellow. And,
well...he lost. But he would've lost if he'd fought my sister, too.
And so on it went. So let's not make foolish statements like "virtually every traditional martial artist who fought in an MMA match lost..." because that's like saying that "every MMA person who competed in the Triple Crown Golf Tournament lost..." It's meaningless.
Traditional martial arts were (and still are) designed to kill an opponent rather than pin him to the ground or force him to submit. They were designed for dealing with multiple aggressors (try wrestling some scumbag on the street and see if his buddies stand around and watch...). On the street, as several members have pointed out, there are no rules, no ring, no cushy mats, no referees, no prize money. You enemy may be (and likely will be) armed. I'd rather not wrestle some bozo who's got a knife in his pocket.
And, as has been pointed out, mixed martial arts are nothing new at all. Competing under rules like they use, is. Traditionalists who compete against MMA practitioners under these rules are fools because their arts were never designed to be restricted by such rules.
For many years people have wanted to see if this karate and kung-fu "stuff" really works...thus, the "full-contact" contests - which are neither "full contact" nor are they really karate or kung-fu. The fact is that you simply can't compete with the real thing. That'd be like having combat shooting matches with competitors shooting at each other, or fencing matches with sabers and no protective gear.
It just ain't healthy.
MMA (which I still insist is a misnomer) has its place as a competitive sport and that's fine. But to say that it's superior to traditional martial arts is like comparing a fish to a bicycle...
- Who owned the event? After making public challenges to "names" such as Bill Wallace and others, the Gracies decided to conduct this special event- and guess who always managed to win?
- I recall some of the hype which featured "traditional martial arts 'masters' " including:
legendary throughout that nation. Now, I try to keep fairly
current on these things but I never heard of this guy-
*A top kenpo "master" from the U.S. The guy had to weigh in at
least at 400 lbs. I was surprised he didn't roll out onto the mat.
If I'd been a kenpo practitioner, I'd have been wondering who on
earth this guy was? Not surprisingly, he lost...
*One of the top kung-fu competitors in America...a young
Caucasian kid. Now, at the time, I was Nat'L Chairman of the
AAU Kung-Fu Division which was the largest kung-fu organization
in the country. I'd never seen or heard of this fellow. And,
well...he lost. But he would've lost if he'd fought my sister, too.
And so on it went. So let's not make foolish statements like "virtually every traditional martial artist who fought in an MMA match lost..." because that's like saying that "every MMA person who competed in the Triple Crown Golf Tournament lost..." It's meaningless.
Traditional martial arts were (and still are) designed to kill an opponent rather than pin him to the ground or force him to submit. They were designed for dealing with multiple aggressors (try wrestling some scumbag on the street and see if his buddies stand around and watch...). On the street, as several members have pointed out, there are no rules, no ring, no cushy mats, no referees, no prize money. You enemy may be (and likely will be) armed. I'd rather not wrestle some bozo who's got a knife in his pocket.
And, as has been pointed out, mixed martial arts are nothing new at all. Competing under rules like they use, is. Traditionalists who compete against MMA practitioners under these rules are fools because their arts were never designed to be restricted by such rules.
For many years people have wanted to see if this karate and kung-fu "stuff" really works...thus, the "full-contact" contests - which are neither "full contact" nor are they really karate or kung-fu. The fact is that you simply can't compete with the real thing. That'd be like having combat shooting matches with competitors shooting at each other, or fencing matches with sabers and no protective gear.
It just ain't healthy.
MMA (which I still insist is a misnomer) has its place as a competitive sport and that's fine. But to say that it's superior to traditional martial arts is like comparing a fish to a bicycle...
Adept
Master Black Belt
Kacey said:
I disagree. Knowing your techniques, and importantly knowing relevant techniques, as well as being in decent physical shape and having plenty of relevant experience is an advantage over anyone who doesn't know squat, and isn't in shape, regardless of the type of competition.
It may not be the most important advantage, but it is an advantage none the less, and often times it will be the decisive one.
Adept
Master Black Belt
I tend to agree with Rook. Unless someone actively takes their TMA background and techniques and applies those techniques in their training, as they would in a 'street' altercation, then they are essentially kidding themselves. Now, I imagine most people here do this, and I imagine that most people here would have found, as I did, that the 'vanilla' techniques, straight from the dojo, were pretty hopeless. They needed slight re-working, and they needed to be applied in live drills.
Added to that, I also found that my TMA repertoire was lacking, and I felt the need to do some cross-training to fill gaps and give myself a more relevant toolbox.
Most MMA fighters do this constantly. They have to in order to remain competitive. I've found that most TMA practitioners do not. Now, I'm sure most of us here take out MA pretty seriously, and have either supplemented our own training or found a school that delivers what we seek; relevant and effective training for likely encounters. But I don't believe that we are the majority of TMA practitioners.
In my experience, most people are pretty happy just taking the vanilla techniques home and never improving them. Perhaps improving them isn't the right word, as it's more a process of modification of application for the individual. Whatever it is, most people don't do it. They never test it against a live opponent, the TKD people never go full contact with someone who wants to take them to the ground, the Judo people never spar against someone trying to take their head off with controlled, competent strikes, etc.
That to me, is the biggest and most important difference between MMA and TMA, or even just full contact sport martial arts and twice-weekly martial arts classes. The competitive fighters train hard, and they train what works for them in a ring environment. Sure, the street is different again, but there is a lot of cross-over area. I know I'd be happier facing most Kung Fu black belts in a bar, than a competent professional boxer.
Added to that, I also found that my TMA repertoire was lacking, and I felt the need to do some cross-training to fill gaps and give myself a more relevant toolbox.
Most MMA fighters do this constantly. They have to in order to remain competitive. I've found that most TMA practitioners do not. Now, I'm sure most of us here take out MA pretty seriously, and have either supplemented our own training or found a school that delivers what we seek; relevant and effective training for likely encounters. But I don't believe that we are the majority of TMA practitioners.
In my experience, most people are pretty happy just taking the vanilla techniques home and never improving them. Perhaps improving them isn't the right word, as it's more a process of modification of application for the individual. Whatever it is, most people don't do it. They never test it against a live opponent, the TKD people never go full contact with someone who wants to take them to the ground, the Judo people never spar against someone trying to take their head off with controlled, competent strikes, etc.
That to me, is the biggest and most important difference between MMA and TMA, or even just full contact sport martial arts and twice-weekly martial arts classes. The competitive fighters train hard, and they train what works for them in a ring environment. Sure, the street is different again, but there is a lot of cross-over area. I know I'd be happier facing most Kung Fu black belts in a bar, than a competent professional boxer.
Dark
Purple Belt
Adept said:
Problem is except for the cookie cutter dojos, the masses of martial arts TMA and MMA all preach physical fittness. That is a non-issue, for non-McDojos, sparring is one thing but lets talk the average human learning curve.
Do as you are most commonly known to do...
Do as you are most repeatedly told to do...
Do as you are most repeatedly see to do...
If you are most commonly told to punch and you must commonly see punching and you most commonly practice punching. Your gonna punch. To that end you hit the preverbial fixed pattern and you lose.
The issue here, is in all reality a non-issue. Most traditional martial arts are derived from other arts modified or added to. Every martial artist who takes themselves seriously adds to or modifies their arts. It's only become look down by the large organizational bodies. To say one is better then the other is personal choice I see no point in arguing. But to say one is meaningless ot the other is childnesses. It's like saying only I can have a red car because I want red cars
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
Rook said:
Big John McCarthy ain't gonna come runnin' out of the alley to save your butt on the street from a rear naked choke. The same rules don't apply. That doesn't mean all styles or systems don't have something productive to offer in the realm of self-defense. All legitimate ones do, it's just some prefer to focus more on the sport aspect, some the 'internal' or performance aspect, and some self-defense aspect.
All systems or styles contain elements of all three aspects (sport/internal/defense) but individual needs usually dictate what art form someone studies. That's not a reason to perpetuate an "us vs. them" mentality. All legitimate arts have something to offer and IMHO if you cut yorself off from any one of them you're only limiting yourself tohow good a martial artist you can actually be.
opcorn:pstarr said:
There are several points to make to this.
1. Everyone realizes that the Gracies were not able to get the best opponents in the earliest UFCs. These people were "Champions" of some sort or another, but were rarely at the top of the heap. However, many very high level MAists have competed.
2. The field is by no means closed to TMAists today. Literally thousands of tournaments go on every year in the US alone. Someone who believes they could do better than those in the early UFCs has ample opportunities to do so. Those who claim effectiveness vs. MMAists without ever having fought competitive ones are deluding themselves.
Many MMA gym members are more then willing to spar or even go full contact with someone who wants to test what they know in a less formal setting.
In short, those who think they can do better should actually do, rather than merely talk about.
3. PRIDE and other organizations often arrange exhibitions between their fighters and non-MMAists or low-level but famous MMAists. Someone who holds a prominent place in the TMA community would have little difficulty getting an exhibition with an excellent practitioner if they ask.
4. "Combat shooting matches" are refered to as wars, police shootouts, etc. Input from what has worked in these actual shooting situations continues to inform training methods and practices. Weapons and ammunition are legitimately called "combat tested" only after actual use in war.
Adept said:
What, in your opinion, constitutes relevant experience? Does competing in tournaments help? Yes - because unlike in-class sparring, you are competing against someone you don't know, and don't practice with regularly - therefore someone less predictable. Nonetheless, in a competition setting, your opponent is not attempting to knock you out, destroy your knee joint, shatter bones, etc - not that such things don't happen, but that is not the aim of tournament competition, and no matter how intense your opponent, in the back of your mind is the thought that there are rules... some kind of rules... which you don't have in the street.
Adept
Master Black Belt
Kacey said:
Anything which helps deal with the adrenalin dump and the shock of getting hit. Full contact sparring matches, tournaments, competitive fights, previous 'streetfight' experience, some types of security or LEO work, etc. Obviously some are better than others, but they are all an advantage in some measure.
Not entirely relevant. Experience taking full contact hits and dealing with rushing adrenaline will be of significant benefit in most real life physical altercations, especially when your opponent(s) don't have that experience.
celtic_crippler said:
True. If someone gets you in a choke on the street, they may hold it until either forced to give it up or until the person being choked dies. How that makes a choke less effective is beyond me.
True. Some are better than others though, and some are better adapted to certain body types than others.
Thats fine. I study karate because its fun, not because I believe I am on the path to destroy people at will. I just wish that people who train for entertainment wouldn't claim that they can beat professional athletes who train effective combat for a living.
Fair enough.
While everyone legitimate has something to offer, some of that is better than others. Sometimes people should be encouraged to pass and focus on what they are looking for rather than trying to justify what they already do as the ultimate style.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Rook said:
Actually Cung Le is not MMA he is CMA but I do not know if Sanshou/Sanda would be classified as TMA. He is so far doing well in MMA.
I have said this before TMA, CMA, JMA, people do not fight in MMA for the same reason Boxers do not. They have thier own competitions, basically MMA does not matter to them. In the case of CMA it is sanshou and as I also stated before in the most recent international Sanshou competition in Vietnam the Woman's silver went to a Tai chi person and the men's bronze also went to a Tai Chi person.
And if you do not think these matches are real you are seriously mistaken. The bronze medalist ended up in surgery because of an injury received related to the match.
And if you go to Chinese national competitions, they can get extremely brutal.
I am not trying to take away from MMA here; I would not even begin to believe I would last very long in an MMA ring. But using the argument that if TMA is so good why don't they fight in MMA is baseless. If MMA is so good why don't they fight in Sanshou? Reason, they are different, period, not better or worse, just different.
Xue Sheng said:
Sanshou is ussually not considered a TMA. It is a sport competition, often practiced in gym settings, lacks kata/forms, and its practitioners pressure test their skills. Sanshou is as traditional as kickboxing, which came out of "full contact karate" in the same manner.
Now follow Cung Le, a very skilled real fighter, in MMA rather than staying there. Sports fighting in non-MMA events should give a good idea of how good a person is in a particular aspect of fighting (in Sanshou it is standup and to a lesser extent takedowns... just add groundwork and your in business).
Don't mistake heavily injured competitors for quality victors, although I do highly respect good competitive Sanshou - its an excellent base for MMA when done right.
They will be well prepared for the standup and takedown components. THat is good.
Huh?
Some people like to fight in all ranges of combat - including the ground. Lots of good fighters want the groundwork component with the less restrictive rules of MMA. Also, MMA still pays better, although it doesn't pay highly, which keeps pro athletes going to MMA and kickboxing.
MMA allows all of what Sanshou does plus more - ie the ground. People who suceed under less restrictive rules are the better proven fighters.
trueaspirer
Green Belt
I think it depends. Any style can be used any way, its how you practiced it. If you practiced it in a single-move way, it won't work, but if you practiced practically, it should work. Even though all mas are different, they are similar enough that any style should work if you apply it right.
