A MT argument while at work

No, that's getting too far into this. I know they are the TMA, but they were part of the MMA mindset (the grappling which the TMA's don't practice regularly) side of the debate. The Karate (kenpo and kungfu too)stuff was the the TMA side.
 
Hand Sword said:
That was another point brought up in the debate. The TMA guys practice what their gospel preaches, which was drop back into a flat footed stance, block then strike. The old 1, 2 method, which was argued too slow for these encounters, but fine for that drunk, with the one big swing.

The drop back thing is misapplied by the McDojo guys, the concept of dropping back it to cause the aggressor to over extend. The same concept id taught in boxing.
 
Hand Sword said:
No, that's getting too far into this. I know they are the TMA, but they were part of the MMA mindset (the grappling which the TMA's don't practice regularly) side of the debate. The Karate (kenpo and kungfu too)stuff was the the TMA side.

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

When your talking TMA are you talking old school or McDojo? If it is McDojo then we all have laundry lists of issues with them, if you are talking pure TMAs then you have to include the "old schoolers" who are all about completeness in training. As far as kung-fu goes there is plenty Chin Na grappling stystems out there. But contrary to the comericals for MMA, they aren't the only one's who grapple.
 
I know. I came up in the old school way too. I was just trying to explain (poorly I guess) of the mindsets of the people in the debate. From my experience the old school is all but extinct now a days. No money would be made from that way of training, students would quit. It seems to be mostly, not all, but, mostly watered down stuff now. That's what I tried to explain to the young bucks at work. They were obviously comparing that, what they did originally, to the MMA stuff. (which is more exciting).
 
I think that maybe a big part of the problem with the perception of traditional martial arts is that many contemporary karate/kung-fu schools no longer teach the arts as they were trained back in the day - too many are interested in student retention, ensuring that classes are "fun and sociable", and so forth.

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

I've certainly seen my fair share of "karate guys" who got their butts kicked in street fights...and everyone points to them and says, "Oh, this karate stuff is a lot of crap."
But the truth is that these guys didn't practice the real art. They came from a social dojo or a sport school or a school whose instructor didn't know much about the old ways.
 
pstarr said:
I think that maybe a big part of the problem with the perception of traditional martial arts is that many contemporary karate/kung-fu schools no longer teach the arts as they were trained back in the day - too many are interested in student retention, ensuring that classes are "fun and sociable", and so forth.

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

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

Yep! exactly! I think this is what dominates now, and has for a while IMHO. I also thinks as I said that this is the base of their arguments. As I said I came up around the old schoolers. I remember what those BB's were like and how their training was. Definitely BRUTAL stuff!
 
Precisely! I asked in another thread what could we do to bring the traditional martial arts back into the limelight, as it were, and get people enthused about training in them...?

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

In my own school, I tell people up front what they can expect from hardcore traditional training- sore, aching muscles, sweat clear down into their socks, bruises, raspberries, an occasional split lip, and if you puke or bleed on the floor you're responsible for cleaning it up...and they love it.
 
Hand Sword said:
Absolutely. But, remember We were talking about LEO/ club fights. These kind of monsters, steroid freaks if you will, with the rage too, are the frequent participants. These real fights were fast and furious boxing/grappling like. The young, muscular, fast bucks so to speak. They, and the way they fight, was what supposedly the TMA guys can't handle without the help of MMA philosophies.

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

However, disagreement on point aside, cracking thread and posts, good to see it being civil too. :)
 
I agree, having come up in the inner city. (I could go on for pages about "street fights" believe me!) But, your disagreement isn't with me. That was their argument. I'm on the side of the TMA'ers. But this isn't so much about street fighting. From club security point of view apples and oranges to a mugger or criminal, or a tussel between the homeless (which I was involoved in, not too far back) . It's hard, fast combat between the "bucks", ya know the "alphas".
 
I feel, maybe I'm wrong that there is a lack of respect for "street" fighters. The tone is that they are unskilled, and barabaric, and not thought too highly of, regarding defending yourself against them. I would advise against this train of thought (if it is yours). That ability of theirs to attack in an unconventional (unskilled) manner, is what makes them dangerous.

Remember they are predators, we are the prey that defends itself. They have the mental advantage of overcoming the fear of fighting or doing something horrible to you. Don't overlook mindset--IT IS IMPORTANT FOR REAL! Also, They have more fighting experience (the real kind), another BIG quality-- CONFIDENCE. They are usually bigger and stronger than you, and have the advantage of picking the right time, place, and method. Training is one thing, doing is another.We train, they DO. Definitely more than the rest of us do. Don't sleep on them as we say here, or you'll go to sleep, maybe permanently.
 
Hand Sword said:
I agree, having come up in the inner city. (I could go on for pages about "street fights" believe me!) But, your disagreement isn't with me. That was their argument. I'm on the side of the TMA'ers. But this isn't so much about street fighting. From club security point of view apples and oranges to a mugger or criminal, or a tussel between the homeless (which I was involoved in, not too far back) . It's hard, fast combat between the "bucks", ya know the "alphas".

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

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

I hear ya, while I don't "respect" respect streetfighters, they have my respect if that makes any sense? I don't like the bully/mugger in them, but I sure as heck wouldn't under estimate anyones fighting skills, that way lies a world of hurt.
 
Hand Sword said:
I feel, maybe I'm wrong that there is a lack of respect for "street" fighters. The tone is that they are unskilled, and barabaric, and not thought too highly of, regarding defending yourself against them. I would advise against this train of thought (if it is yours). That ability of theirs to attack in an unconventional (unskilled) manner, is what makes them dangerous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Damn that's a good post. True words of wisdom, yet more rep points for you methinks. ;)
 
Rook said:
Ok.



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



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




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




If not superiority, then perhaps a mistaken equality.




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



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



Ok.



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My best to you and I hope your MMA never fails you.
 
Rook said:
At this point, MMA is the best we have and other systems should either prove that they are still competitive or stop pretending to be able to fight more effectively.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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