A MT argument while at work

[MardiGras Bandit]

MMA is not combat but sport fighting. There is a distinct differance. While MMA has proven to be very, very effective in a ring, one on one. It has yet been effectively proven on the battlefield. That does not mean that over time it might not be proven to be the best on the battlefield but as of yet it has not accomplished that. Your above statement about all ranges of combat is not quite right either. MMA generally works in Kicking, Hand Striking and Grappling. It rarely deals with trapping or locking while standing up nor does it address weapons. Now having said the above, weapons, kicking, hand striking trapping and grappling are not ranges but areas of combat. Ranges are Long, Medium and Short. So if someone is firing a rifle at me from a distance of say 100 meters he is at a long range in comparison to me. MMA generally covers medium to short range. (striking and grappling generally included here) While I love MMA both watching and training it is important to understand that in order for someone to refer to it as combat then one would have to add weapons training and standing locking and trapping into the mix. Only then would it be defined as a combat art. Training for the ring and training to survive on the street or in a war zone are two completely different things.

Where does that leave most TMA's? They haven't been proven in combat, and certianly haven't been proven in the ring. You open a Pandora's box if your definition of a combat art has to include all elements of modern battlefield combat. How many MA's include anti-aircraft tactics? Get what I mean? As a few people have said, a punch is a punch and a kick is a kick, regardless of it happens in the ring, the street, or Iraq.

The reason MMA style training is more effective then that of most TMA's is it requires resistance training. MMA is a competition, and one can only prepare for it by training with resistance. Even if you don't plan to compete, by training in an MMA style enviroment you will be exposed to this method and greatly benefit from it. I don't mean to hijack this into another "aliveness" thread, but understanding this basic principle behind MMA is key to understanding its success.

EDIT: Damn, I guess I should have read your link before I posted! Now I know what you refer too when you talk about limitations in MMA. I concede the point, MMA does not include chainsaw training. It doesn't even include grass training. Hell, I don't even know what grass training is.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Rules or no rules, there is no doubt real MMA people train hard, very hard and they are good fighters becasue of it. And if a TMA or CMA or JMA person trains as hard they are good fighters too.

I am admittedly a dinosaur, but when I first started in MA it was Japanese Jujitsu and we trained hard and there were no pads or protective gear then so you learned you to be hit as well hit and you needed to know how to block so you wouldn’t get hit and then there was throwing and falling, no mats.

I do not see this type of training in MA today so to some extent I can see the point of some MMA people. However I do not see it as better than anything else or the culmination of all martial arts. It is a good fighting art, but so are many Wing Chun schools as well. It is, at least to me, as I have said previously, all up to the practitioner as to how good and or effective they want to be.

 

[funnytiger]

Where does that leave most TMA's? They haven't been proven in combat, and certianly haven't been proven in the ring.

What do you mean TMA have not been proven in combat? When they were first conceived it wasn't just to pass the time away...

And by ring you mean MMA ring. I think Sanshou would count as being in a ring and thats been adequately covered here already...

 

[MardiGras Bandit]

Battles that happend hundreds or thousands of years ago don't count much in my opinion. There is too much legend and myth involved in stories of martial arts in ancient times to cite them as accurate evidence. If something fails to work well today, I see no reason why it would have succeeded 1000 years ago.

As for Sanshou, I consider it far closer to MMA then to most traditional arts I have seen. The reason is that competition is an important part of the art and competition requires resistance training.

 

[funnytiger]

Believe it or not, but some TMA's were conceived in as little as 150 years ago. Does that count in your "hundreds of thousands"?


EDIT: Okay, I realize that came off as being a little snide, and I just want to apologize if it does. This whole MMA is the best bull is just so old and tiring.

 

[Rook]

Believe it or not, but some TMA's were conceived in as little as 150 years ago. Does that count in your "hundreds of thousands"?


EDIT: Okay, I realize that came off as being a little snide, and I just want to apologize if it does. This whole MMA is the best bull is just so old and tiring.

TMAs have been concieved for quite a while and if you look around, there are plenty of people founding new imatations of them today.

 

[pstarr]

Anyone who thinks that traditional martial arts have never been proven in combat needs to study martial arts - because he obviously has never done so.

This is part and parcel of the problem. People who know little or nothing of the real traditional martial arts (not the McDojos) make untrue or inaccurate statements/assessments and then get into a urinating competition about whose daddy is tougher.

The traditional martial arts developed out of combat where there's no second-place trophies or cash awards.

What's being called "MMA" developed out of competition where both contestants get to go home after the bout.

One is a sport, one is not. The two cannot be compared.

 

[MJS]

Battles that happend hundreds or thousands of years ago don't count much in my opinion. There is too much legend and myth involved in stories of martial arts in ancient times to cite them as accurate evidence.

Question for you. If we go with the above statement, would you then say it would be safe to assume that anything that happened in the past would possibly be inaccurate? If thats the case, whats the sense of having a US History class in the school system? I mean, if there isn't going to be any truth in anything, why teach the kids a bunch of false info.?

If something fails to work well today, I see no reason why it would have succeeded 1000 years ago.

Are you talking about working in the ring?

As for Sanshou, I consider it far closer to MMA then to most traditional arts I have seen. The reason is that competition is an important part of the art and competition requires resistance training.

Another question for you. Why does the effectiveness of something always fall onto its success in the ring? I can train 'alive' without having to step into the cage.

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm a big fan of the UFC and give the fighters alot of credit for what they do. However, it still has its limitations, so I wouldn't go so far as to say its complete.

Mike

 

[Rook]

You don't train MMA, but you are saying things like Sanshou is a good starting point for MMA (And you also don't train Sanshou, which would explain your lack of knowledge of it).

Sure. The standup is generally a fairly effective kickboxing style, the takedowns work consistantly, and most importantly, those Sanshou practitioners that have switched to MMA have generally done fairly well.

You don’t train MMA and yet you are arguing for it against all other styles. You don't train MMA and you do train Karate and you are judging CMA by what? The TV show kung fu and movies.

So far, I've judged CMA by the ineffective practitioners they have sent to fight in the ring. If you people are to have any hope of being taken seriously, you will need to send some better people rather than snipe from the internet that some hypothetical master in the mountains could kill us all at will with his chi but doesn't feel like it.

As for the Buick example, you have already entirely missed my point, so changing it to fit your argument is at this point... well… pointless.

I think your point was that judgements about "best" are subjective. I was trying to point out the limitations in that arguement.

okie dokie, nuff said, were done.

Nice talking to you (I'm not being sarcastic; this was interesting).

 

[Rook]

What your missing is that people who study for combat or war due not study for fighting. They are different animals altogether. Someone who trains MMA does not lose their ability to fight once outside of the ring. However, outside of the ring their are no rules to protect them. People who train for real world conflict due not play by rules and therefore their training is more geared toward reality. You defend how you train, so to speak. As a MMA person if you train for the ring that will carry over in how you defend yourself on the street. Most MMA's are geared towards the ring and towards a fight, so to say. Combtive martial arts are not geared towards fighting but in surving a violent encounter. There are differances between the two. Could an MMA guy or girl be successful in defending themselves on the street, sure! Does it mean that they will be successful in the real world just because they study MMA, no!

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com

I still don't get how this works.

If someone can run, they should. This is generally agreed upon by most everyone. If you can't run, you may have to fight. Again, generally agreed upon. I see no reason that the abilities of a "cagefighter" should be anything other than more effective in this situation than any other style.

 

[Kreth]

If you people are to have any hope of being taken seriously, you will need to send some better people rather than snipe from the internet that some hypothetical master in the mountains could kill us all at will with his chi but doesn't feel like it.

I think TMA practitioners in general are taken seriously, unlike the small percentage of arrogant MMA practitioners that feel the need to thump their chests and bash anything different from their training. Also, what makes you think a serious TMA practitioner gives a rat's *** about how he/she is viewed by those chest-thumpers?

 

[Rook]

Anyone who thinks that traditional martial arts have never been proven in combat needs to study martial arts - because he obviously has never done so.

This is part and parcel of the problem. People who know little or nothing of the real traditional martial arts (not the McDojos) make untrue or inaccurate statements/assessments and then get into a urinating competition about whose daddy is tougher.

The traditional martial arts developed out of combat where there's no second-place trophies or cash awards.

What's being called "MMA" developed out of competition where both contestants get to go home after the bout.

One is a sport, one is not. The two cannot be compared.

The arguement revolves around modern fighting (ie right here right now). There is an irratating tendancy among some individuals to claim the achievements of a great master in the past means that they automatically inherit his (or her) fighting prowess or some fraction of it by studying his art. In point of fact, the master in the past likely fought opponents not at the level of modern sportsfighters and the practitioners often are not able to emulate past sucess against modern fighters.

Let me see if I can give another example. For more than five thousand years bladed weapons won and lost wars across Europe, Asia and a good part of Africa. With gunpowder, the effectiveness of these weapons on the battlefield decreased dramatically. Many people practice swordwork today, but I hear no one say that their sword is a superior battlefield weapon to the gun. The gun may be a young weapon by comparison, but in almost every comparison between a gun-weilding army and one without guns, those with the firearms have won, including instances of dramatic differances in number (Cortez's expedition being a prime example).

If we argued weapons the same way we argued unarmed styles, someone would say "Well, there is a five thousand year history to the sword." Or they would mention a famous swordsman and proclaim his ability to cut down any modern soldier armed with a gun. Of course, they then would decline to test their theory in any form.

One needs be neither a master swordsman ("you can't know anything about our style unless you've studied it for twenty years" and nonsense of that sort) or an expert marksman to see the huge flaws in this arguement.

The analogy is imperfect. I'll try another one later.

 

[Rook]

I think TMA practitioners in general are taken seriously, unlike the small percentage of arrogant MMA practitioners that feel the need to thump their chests and bash anything different from their training. Also, what makes you think a serious TMA practitioner gives a rat's *** about how he/she is viewed by those chest-thumpers?

I doubt they care much at all. That is irratating, in that it give rise to endless internet arguements in the place of testing their assertions by actually facing off with one another.

 

[Rook]

Question for you. If we go with the above statement, would you then say it would be safe to assume that anything that happened in the past would possibly be inaccurate? If thats the case, whats the sense of having a US History class in the school system? I mean, if there isn't going to be any truth in anything, why teach the kids a bunch of false info.?

Accurate history arose rather later in terms of eastern martial arts than it did in other realms of history. Some history is disputed other parts are generally accepted by mainstream historians.

Some rather fanciful accounts of the exploits of the martial arts masters of the past are best not taken at face value.

For instance:

1. Yang Luchan was attacked by a man with a spear. He twisted the shaft of the spear and the man was thrown onto the roof of a five story building.

2. Fuk Yi was in India. Attacked by an elephant, he pushed it off balance and iron palm slapped it once on the ear. It died.

3. Bak Mei came upon a man trying to assault a woman. He punched through the man's chest and rib cage with his hand coming out the man's back, killing him instantly.

Many talented martial artists have had their prowess greatly amplified by unlikely stories. This continues into the present day with men like Rickson Gracie (400-0) and Mas Oyama (did he kill one, two, 52, or "more than sixty" bulls, and what happened to his Judo and Shorinji Kenpo credentials?) whose records are perhaps less amazing than they first appear.

Are you talking about working in the ring?

Or in a video recorded challenge match or something of that sort.

Another question for you. Why does the effectiveness of something always fall onto its success in the ring? I can train 'alive' without having to step into the cage.

Sure. However, all claims not recorded are potentially suspect. The next best thing is having talented martial artists who vouch for you (like Mikhail Ryobko, Hatsumi and Bruce Lee have). The third best is credible explanations from a person himself/herself.

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm a big fan of the UFC and give the fighters alot of credit for what they do. However, it still has its limitations, so I wouldn't go so far as to say its complete.

Mike

I hope I didn't misunderstand.

I think MMA is limited in some ways, in that it is focused on a certain goal and doesn't do things outside that. For instance, MMA doesn't train techniques for restraining low-level fighters without injuring them, nor does it have offensive weapons work, nor does it have spiritual practices. Thats fine, one just has to go to a style that specializes in those things if they are desired. Including them in MMA would, IMHO, take away from what it is focused on.

 

[Dark]

I still don't get how this works.

If someone can run, they should. This is generally agreed upon by most everyone. If you can't run, you may have to fight. Again, generally agreed upon. I see no reason that the abilities of a "cagefighter" should be anything other than more effective in this situation than any other style.

The basic structure of the human learning curve is to reflexively fall back on your most common experiences. Is this an exceptable fact for you? Because if it isn't what I'm gonna say isn't gonna mean much.

We do what we see the most, we do what we hear the most and we do what we have done the most. Thats the basic memory pattern and recall structure. Meaning if you train in application of a cross arm abr you will be effective at applying it and recall it better based on habit and repetition. Can we agree on this?

I'll explain in better detail once I know your tracking where I'm going... There is more to come...

 

[pstarr]

I know of many highly skilled practitioners of Chinese martial arts and none of them have the vaguest interest in competing in any kind of full-contact type match.

Your analogy about swords and firearms seems to miss the point. Are you trying to say that what you call "MMA" is the new "modern firearm" of the martial arts world and that the traditional martial arts are the outmoded swords? If so, your thinking is seriously skewed. Very seriously.

MMA have never been used on a battlefield. They were developed for competition. It's a GAME! Losers go home.

Traditional martial arts were developed not from a sports base, but from a combative base. NOT a game. Losers get buried or left to rot.

If someone wins in the ring, he's a better fighter within the context of the rules forced upon him by the game.

Take away the rules - all of them - and allow virtually anything (with no referees), and watch the fun.

The famous boxer, Joe Louis, was once approached in a bar by a smaller man who made it clear that he wanted to fight. Louis was used to this "fastest gun in the West" syndrome and tried to put the little fellow off but the challenger was having none of it.
In desperation, Louis finally agreed to a fight. He turned to face his opponent who brought his fists up in a typical boxer's stance.
Louis kicked him in the balls. End of fight.
Louis later told the press that "boxing is a sport and fightin' is fightin'."

Doe this make any sense to you?

 

[Rook]

I know of many highly skilled practitioners of Chinese martial arts and none of them have the vaguest interest in competing in any kind of full-contact type match.

Ok.

Your analogy about swords and firearms seems to miss the point. Are you trying to say that what you call "MMA" is the new "modern firearm" of the martial arts world and that the traditional martial arts are the outmoded swords?

Thats pretty much the gist of it.

If so, your thinking is seriously skewed. Very seriously.

Prove me wrong...

MMA have never been used on a battlefield. They were developed for competition. It's a GAME! Losers go home.

Actually, the Army-wide US military combatives program is now heavily based on BJJ, and the US Marines basic training also has heavy new influences from BJJ in the last 10 years. Several MMA fighters and coaches have worked as military consultants.

(It should be noted that designing part of the combatives system is different than teaching on a particular base. Ussually teaching on a particular base is done at the request of a commander of somesort and attendance is often either optional or only partial.)

Traditional martial arts were developed not from a sports base, but from a combative base. NOT a game. Losers get buried or left to rot.

Yet have been totally unable to kill any skill sportsfighter. Given the claimed lethality, these traditional martial arts should have found at least a couple sucesses by now against MMAists...

If someone wins in the ring, he's a better fighter within the context of the rules forced upon him by the game.

What about tournaments with no rules, like the three AFC tournaments? What about the Vale Tudo where Gerard G. legally eyegouged a guy and still lost (you may remember Gerard as the guy who bit Royce to no effect in the last round of UFC 1)? What about the couple of Russian "Combat Sambo Total" tournaments with nothing but fines for eyegouges and biting, or the early UFCs, which permited anything but eyegouging and biting and only fined $1,000 for those? Where were these invincible rule-less warriors? Matter of fact, where are they now?

Take away the rules - all of them - and allow virtually anything (with no referees), and watch the fun.

See above. There have been 4 AFCs and 1 Vale Tudo tournament with no restricted techniques at all... none of them won by TMA practitioners.

Also, there are still lots of opportunities to fight without rules if you go to many MMA training halls, declare your art and ask for a fight with no rules. Youtube will likely crash under the number of videos of people getting annilated in "no rules" challenges to MMAists. And then there's that Gracie challenge....

The famous boxer, Joe Louis, was once approached in a bar by a smaller man who made it clear that he wanted to fight. Louis was used to this "fastest gun in the West" syndrome and tried to put the little fellow off but the challenger was having none of it.
In desperation, Louis finally agreed to a fight. He turned to face his opponent who brought his fists up in a typical boxer's stance.
Louis kicked him in the balls. End of fight.
Louis later told the press that "boxing is a sport and fightin' is fightin'."

And in a fight where groin kicks are allowed (most of the UFCs, virtually every Combat Sambo tournament, Finnfight, the AFCs, the IFCs, and loads of small tournaments), what excuse then?

Doe this make any sense to you?

Sure.

 

[matt.m]

I have been in bona fide combat in Haiti as well as other places. I was there in 1994 while in the Marines. Sorry, using hapkido (punching, kicking, cane, wrist and clothes) techniques are quite effective.

You know I have seen all the UFC and Pride stuff. Honestly it is judo randori with puching. I don't care what anyone says. It is not that I am not open minded, I am. The deal is I have been in scenarios where I knew I could die plain and simple. Pride and UFC are contests with rules, not a fight.

 

[MardiGras Bandit]

Question for you. If we go with the above statement, would you then say it would be safe to assume that anything that happened in the past would possibly be inaccurate? If thats the case, whats the sense of having a US History class in the school system? I mean, if there isn't going to be any truth in anything, why teach the kids a bunch of false info.?

Rook pretty much covered this, but I'll answer anyway. There is a big difference between modern history and martial arts history. One is well known and researched and the other is a niche field at best filled with false information. Look at historical accounts of martial arts victories and then look towards comon sense. For example: A war was fought in China in the year so and so (fair enough and historicaly true) in which five shaolin monks with sticks defeated 1,300 swordsmen and saved then Emporer (total nonsense). Most often such claims are trotted out as argument winners and claims of effectiveness, and most often they are complete bs.

That is one of the biggest reasons for MMA success. It removed all mystisicm from the martial arts and let people decide what works and what doesn't based off of observable fights, not silly stories. If something works poorly now, why should anyone believe it worked better however many years ago?

Are you talking about working in the ring?
Another question for you. Why does the effectiveness of something always fall onto its success in the ring? I can train 'alive' without having to step into the cage.

I don't think a person has to compete in MMA to prove there worth as a martial artist. I don't do it and never plan to, and the same is true for 99% of people. I value the training method more the the actual sport, because i think that is how real skill is best developed. However when certain arts are consistently unable to provide any practitioner able to be competitive in MMA I have to question that art. The same is true when someone from those arts does compete, but uses little to nothing of what their art teaches and instead relies on standard MMA operating procedure.

 

[pstarr]

Tell you what, Rook...

I'm a damned fine combat shooter. Not only have I trained extensively, I've been in the game for real.

Wanna strap on your favorite handgun and give me a try?

No?

Most traditional martial artists have virtually no interest in going into any school and seeing who's got the biggest peepee or who can beat their chest the hardest. That's childish and it's pointless.

They have no desire to enter MMA competition to show people like you how tough they are.

Tell you what - if you're so upset about all of this why don't you find a real, traditional martial arts school and walk in and challenge them to a knock-down drag-out fight?

Oh yeah - and just because the U.S. military teaches BJJ or whatever to their recruits doesn't lend it any credibility whatsoever...any more than the legendary "O'neil System" did back in the 60's and 70's. I can feature a trooper with full gear rolling around on a battlefield wrestling an enemy soldier.

Not for long, Bucko.

Even the military admits that it doesn't teach this stuff to it's soldiers with any expectations that they'll ever use it on the battlefield. So the fact that it's taught in the military is meaningless.

I know that MMA people train hard for their sport. They are justifiably proud of what they do and that's fine.

But you need to mature a bit and understand that there's a whole world of very dangerous, highly-trained martial arts practitioners out there who don't care one whit about competing or proving how strong they are.