discussion of philosophy

[CuongNhuka]

A couple weeks ago my more-or-less-brother in law (long story, don't ask) were in a some what heated discussion about MMA. The long story behind short is one of his freinds was in an MMA fight. He signed up a week before, with no real training. Never mind that or the fact that these fights aren't exectly sactioned (as far as anyone is aware). I said I'd lose all resepct for him if he did. Some how or other we ended up in a discussion of (his stand) that MMA is more effective then TMA, or (my stand) the philosophy is irrelevent. It ended in a concensensus (we had a small audience) that we could reach no real conclusion.
The question is (know that I get to it) was this discussion even half way valid. Ignore the fact that my brother in law has no training what so ever, out side what the Army Guard taught him. The question is really, does the philosophy matter. Could MMA be more effective then TMA. And please don't give me this crap about how "my style is the best, everything else is irrelevent". I mostly want to see how the same discussion would play out in the hands of people who could say from experience, or there own knowledge.

 

[Steel Tiger]

A couple weeks ago my more-or-less-brother in law (long story, don't ask) were in a some what heated discussion about MMA. The long story behind short is one of his freinds was in an MMA fight. He signed up a week before, with no real training. Never mind that or the fact that these fights aren't exectly sactioned (as far as anyone is aware). I said I'd lose all resepct for him if he did. Some how or other we ended up in a discussion of (his stand) that MMA is more effective then TMA, or (my stand) the philosophy is irrelevent. It ended in a concensensus (we had a small audience) that we could reach no real conclusion.
The question is (know that I get to it) was this discussion even half way valid. Ignore the fact that my brother in law has no training what so ever, out side what the Army Guard taught him. The question is really, does the philosophy matter. Could MMA be more effective then TMA. And please don't give me this crap about how "my style is the best, everything else is irrelevent". I mostly want to see how the same discussion would play out in the hands of people who could say from experience, or there own knowledge.

Coming from a TMA background I'm bound to say that the philosophy matters. But I really think it does. Take the Chinese internal arts for example. Techniques develop because of the philosophy not as an aside from it. It is the concept of wholeness that is often difficult for us non-Asians to comprehend at times (thank you to our Greek philosophical and scientific ancestors). When you look at the reasons that MMa came into existence, then a philosophy can be seen there as well. The hardcore guys might not like to acknowledge the fact but MMa has a philosophy.

 

[exile]

Could MMA be more effective then TMA. And please don't give me this crap about how "my style is the best, everything else is irrelevent". I mostly want to see how the same discussion would play out in the hands of people who could say from experience, or there own knowledge.

CN, this topic has been thrashed through on at least a dozen or so threads that I've seen on MT in the more than half year that I've been a member. And over and over again, the strongest conclusion that anyone seems to be able to draw is that it makes no sense to ask whether one MA—one fighting system—is more effective than another MA, because systems don't fight—FIGHTERS fight, using the technical resources of this or that system. All of the TMAs have been battle-tested in street fights for generations; that's how they came into being—as self-defense systems for people who had no other protections, typically. It was Darwinian pressure from day one: if a tech didn't work, it wouldn't be retained. But individuals can apply the repertoire of any given TMA more or less effectively. Same for individuals who study MMAs.

Think of a game of chess: Black plays the Sicilian defense in response to White's opening King pawn move. If Black is a better player, s/he'll win most of the time with the Sicilian, simply because s/he's better. If White is a better player, then Black will lose. The same will happen if Black plays the standard Ruy Lopez sequece in response to the same opening by White. If a stronger White beats a weaker Black who's playing the Sicilian, and a stronger Black uses a Ruy Lopez continuation to defeat a weaker White, does this mean that the Sicilian is worse for Black to play than the Ruy line? No experienced chessplayer ever would make a statement like that! At most, s/he might tell you which one s/he likes better... but say that one is better than the other? Ridiculous—if that were actually the case, then the weaker one would long ago have been abandoned.

The whole question is a mistake for just this reason, IMO. A faster, stronger, gifted fighter will defeat a slower, weaker, less competent fighter from either side of the TMA/MMA line. I've yet to see, in any of the arguments on this point, a convincing suggestion for eliminating individual variation and getting to the efficacy of the different arts `directly'. For this reason, the debate virtually never gets anywhere, and it doesn't improve with repetition...

 

[MJS]

A couple weeks ago my more-or-less-brother in law (long story, don't ask) were in a some what heated discussion about MMA. The long story behind short is one of his freinds was in an MMA fight. He signed up a week before, with no real training. Never mind that or the fact that these fights aren't exectly sactioned (as far as anyone is aware). I said I'd lose all resepct for him if he did. Some how or other we ended up in a discussion of (his stand) that MMA is more effective then TMA, or (my stand) the philosophy is irrelevent. It ended in a concensensus (we had a small audience) that we could reach no real conclusion.
The question is (know that I get to it) was this discussion even half way valid. Ignore the fact that my brother in law has no training what so ever, out side what the Army Guard taught him. The question is really, does the philosophy matter. Could MMA be more effective then TMA. And please don't give me this crap about how "my style is the best, everything else is irrelevent". I mostly want to see how the same discussion would play out in the hands of people who could say from experience, or there own knowledge.

I'll give the same answer that I usually give to these types of threads. Both MMA and TMA have things that each other can benefit from. As far as techniques go, it comes down to how things are applied.

 

[tellner]

There are some caveats here. And they may sound strange coming from someone with a TMA background...

• Sometimes narrow and deep beats wide and shallow
• But only if it gets tested against the kind of fighter one is likely to encounter
• Some martial arts have never been "battle tested". Many were designed for other purposes such as competition against others in the same style, nationalism, gymnastics or similar. And they stayed there. Caveat Emptor
• You can't master everything, but you need to at least know a little about what the other guys are doing so that you can deal with it
• The Great Masters of Old may have been kickass fighters. They aren't the ones in your fight
• Remember the wise words of "Judo" Gene Le Bell. "I'm the toughest SOB in the world, and in every truck stop there's a dozen guys who could pin me up against the wall and beat me to death."
• Philosophy is important, but only in its proper time and place. Too much too soon and you turn into a theoretical martial artist who gets beat up in fights.

 

[exile]

There are some caveats here. And they may sound strange coming from someone with a TMA background...

• Sometimes narrow and deep beats wide and shallow
• But only if it gets tested against the kind of fighter one is likely to encounter
• Some martial arts have never been "battle tested". Many were designed for other purposes such as competition against others in the same style, nationalism, gymnastics or similar. And they stayed there. Caveat Emptor
• You can't master everything, but you need to at least know a little about what the other guys are doing so that you can deal with it
• The Great Masters of Old may have been kickass fighters. They aren't the ones in your fight
• Remember the wise words of "Judo" Gene Le Bell. "I'm the toughest SOB in the world, and in every truck stop there's a dozen guys who could pin me up against the wall and beat me to death."
• Philosophy is important, but only in its proper time and place. Too much too soon and you turn into a theoretical martial artist who gets beat up in fights.

Mike's and Tellner's posts nicely summarize another point of consensus, CN: it's how realistically you train that determines how you'll do. The point is that Old Masters of Old were indeed the kickass fighters they were precisely because they trained in brutally realistic ways. A number of the great Okinawan karateka in the era after Matsumura trained by provoking fights (with, admittedly, easily provoked street toughs in Shuri and Naha) and experimenting with the techs they had been taught under the most realistic conditions possible. Motobu and Choki Kyan in particular were fond of this kind of `training', but both Matsumura and Anko Itosu were involved in many fights in their capacity as chief bodyguards and LEOs to the King of Okinawa. Hard, damaging physical coflicts were all in a day's work for them. Ask any bouncer or in-the-field security worker: you have to train for the worst case. TMAs, trained for the worst case, are brutally, even lethally effective. But how many TMAists actually train them that way?

 

[tellner]

Here's another way of looking at it...

Philosophy in martial arts is worthwhile if it follows naturally from the insights you get from training and applying your training. It is worthwhile if it serves the end of helping with your practice, giving you perspective on the things that training or combat do to you and makes you a better martial artist whatever-the-hell-that-is. When it does those, great. When it doesn't ****-can it. It's turned into delusion and intellectual masturbation.

 

[TraditionalTKD]

Philosophy is important because without it, martial arts would just degenerate into fighting. That doesn't mean you need to be obsessed about philosophy, but every legitimate art should have a solid philosophy behind that tempers its members' fighting skills and techniques with a sense of respect for humanity and responsibility for what they are able to do. For most Oriental fighting arts, this philosophy is most likely grounded in Taoism-Buddhism-Confucianism, as well as whatever native philosophy contributes to the art. But I do agree that philosophy is important to form a moral basis to any style.

 

[FearlessFreep]

First off; there is no such thing as MMA and TMA. Even the words are orthogonal (Mixed vs Traditional? What does that mean?) Thry are distinctions without a difference. Most 'traditional' arts draw from many arts before them; and MMA itself just draws tehniques from various TMA. History is a continuum and we're just at one point in it so don't get wrapped up with the terminology changes of history changes

Second, everyone has a pholosophy. Taekwondo and Boxing and BJJ all have philosophies has to how to generate power, how to be effective, etc.. Every teacher has a philsophy and a good teacher will adapt that philosophyto te strengths and weakness of the student. Each student asbsbs and modifies that philosophy as they see fit. Every fighter and artist has a philosophy for how they fight best, which isimplemented in stratey, which is realized in techniques.

Third., don' think MMA vs TMA, think of 'what do I train for' Here is, as I see it, why people do martial arts
1) Fitness
2) Enlightenment
3) Art
4) Sport
5) Self Defense/Combat


Most people train some combination of those motivations and it's within those realms that the success or failure of your training and you 'art' are measured. If you train for Art and Enlightenment, then you don't care about self-defense and asking "yeah, but can you fight" is a pretty stupid question. If you train Self-Defense then you probably know a lot of techniques that are illegal in any Sport competition. If you train for Sport then you train based under certain assumptions that will not apply outside your Sport. Any art, whether considered a "TMA" or an "MMA" or whatnot can fit it's training into those goals; some are inherent in the philosophy of the art, some are derived by the student who has a goal; but the 'effectiveness' of your art is the effectivness of your training to meet your own desires in why you train

 

[Cirdan]

No instructor I`ve met ever tried to teach me what is morally right or wrong, least of all those who were in fact Bhuddist priests. In the Dojo you basically learn two things, focus (shut up and train) and to respect those you train with. Now there are those that like to recite things like "I shall build a better world trough my art" but this is pretty meaningless, it is the sweat you leave on the Dojo floor day after day that matters.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

It's not the style it's the application except that "my style is the best, everything else is irrelevent"

 

[CoryKS]

Is a hammer better than a screwdriver? Kinda depends on what you're trying to do with it, doesn't it?

 

[IWishToLearn]

It's not the style it's the application except that "my style is the best, everything else is irrelevent"

We are the Borg. Lower your shields and prepare to be boarded. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

 

[Langenschwert]

Philosophy is important because without it, martial arts would just degenerate into fighting. That doesn't mean you need to be obsessed about philosophy, but every legitimate art should have a solid philosophy behind that tempers its members' fighting skills and techniques with a sense of respect for humanity and responsibility for what they are able to do. For most Oriental fighting arts, this philosophy is most likely grounded in Taoism-Buddhism-Confucianism, as well as whatever native philosophy contributes to the art. But I do agree that philosophy is important to form a moral basis to any style.

First of all, fighting is not "degenerate". That is where MA have their genesis. Violence is a means of conflict resolution, albeit not an optimal one. Remember what Martial means. To say that an art without a philosophical underpinning is not legitimate gives me a big question mark hovering over my head, as much as a Martial Art that isn't combat effective does as well.

To be honest, you should learn decency from your parents. To rely on combative arts to teach one to be a good human being seems odd to me. When I study swordsmanship, I train to do horrible, horrible things to people. Whether I abuse that knowledge or not has to do with my personality, not the philosophical underpinnings of German Longsword. Of which there aren't any, really. It has religious overtones of Catholocism, but that's it... and I'm not a Catholic. Lacking philosophical underpinnings does not make an art illegitimate. People can be good or bad regardless of whatever philosophy they are exposed to.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

If God really does judge people in the afterlife, I somehow doubt our martial arts will be a factor in judging us

In other words, your character is independent of your martial art. Doing MA really isn't that big a deal, its nothing special. Its just something we enjoy doing.

 

[still learning]

Hello, Just my thoughts on this: The only way you can train for a real fight? and know what works and don't, to gain intincts is to get inot real fights?

You have to learn to fight for real? Even the army/marines train before going to WAR..but they will tell you it is different from training. NOTHING PREPARES YOU MORE THAN ACTULLY FIGHTING!

Mma is alot closer to real fighting, VS traditional, because of the way they train.

Muay Thai,boxing is actully getting hit and hitting back for real hits. How many traditional schools have full contact fighting at every training class? maybe a handful?

Like learning to play football in practice...is one thing....to get into a real game changes things. You will get better learning to play in real games. Just like getting into real fights!

Please Do not get into real fights! Practice avoidance/verbal defense's

Aloha from Hawaii....where sand is nice,surfing great, and fishing is still fun. (We do fight with the fish! sometime we win..sometime they win!)

Note: the left HOOK always work!

 

[Tez3]

In the MMA clubs I know of no one trains full contact, thats just silly! We do fight full contact, the training however is strenous and hard but we don't go in full contact maybe 60-70%, more often less when learning drills etc.
We quite often have people phoning up asking to be matched on a show who have no experience of martial arts but fancy themselves as streetfighters, they are told to go away not always politely because they get abusive when told they won't last five minutes and we want MMA fighters not brawlers.
Philosophy I think is a personal thing which we take into the martial arts we practice, I don't think we take the philosophy from the martial art as we gravitate towards clubs/schools/arts that reflect our personal beliefs.

 

[Sukerkin]

If God really does judge people in the afterlife, I somehow doubt our martial arts will be a factor in judging us

In other words, your character is independent of your martial art. Doing MA really isn't that big a deal, its nothing special. Its just something we enjoy doing.

Obviously this is only my opinion and expereince but, even in the rather street-fighting, Jeet Kune Do influenced, Lau Gar kung fu I did, it was very apparent that your personality was most assuredly part and parcel of the deal. That was for the very simple reason that if the teachers didn't think you had the right personality then you didn't get taught.

That is something that has ebbed away in recent times, it seems, as the martial arts have become a more Western-styled in the way they do 'business'.

For myself, I think this is not a positive move as it seems to be leading to putting more effective methods of 'beating people up' into the hands (MA pun attack !) of those predisposed towards violence as the first solution rather than the last resort.

Ah, bother! My missus' dulcet tones tell me that tea is ready, so I shall have to cut short (thank God says everyone ).

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

If God really does judge people in the afterlife, I somehow doubt our martial arts will be a factor in judging us

In other words, your character is independent of your martial art. Doing MA really isn't that big a deal, its nothing special. Its just something we enjoy doing.

If God judges us on our Martial Arts practice we are all going to hell for consciously studying how to hurt/kill another man/woman. And in some cases actually applying that study in competitive/non-competitive settings.

:End rant:

 

[Tez3]

If God judges us on our Martial Arts practice we are all going to hell for consciously studying how to hurt/kill another man/woman. And in some cases actually applying that study in competitive/non-competitive settings.

:End rant:

I think God would judge on what our motives were and what was in our hearts rather than for doing martial arts.