discussion of philosophy

[CuongNhuka]

First of all you folks misintripted what I mean by philosophy. In this case I mean the philosophy of "mma"/"tma". Otherwise I wouldn't bother to put it down, it seems unrelated.

Next, some folks mentioned application. In the orginal discussion, I did mention application. His response confused me. It was something about how it's not the original martial art anymore, because you changed it to suit the person doing it. I had a hard time trying to explain that that is part of the kata, well ok, he completely missed it.

Also, 2 or 3 people mention being battle tested. Several traditional martial arts have been "battle tested", in some way. I know styles like Shotokan, Judo, Wing Chun, old school Tae Kwon Do (in America, I question if it'll work too well, only because of the large number of mcdojos/pseudomcdojos), and I know Cuong Nhu has been. But has any MMA style been "battle tested"? Has someone like Pat Miletich been in a "real" fight?

Someone also mentioned how one trains. Few traditionalists train in what could be considered a "real" manner. But, how many MMA fighters train in a "real" manner? I'm not questioning the effectiveness of MMA, but how many have (say) been in a sparring match with no ref? Or in street clothes? Or what resemble them?

Still learning mentioned nothing works like the real thing. The goal of someone training for self defense would be to as closely as possible match what a fight would be like. And at this point I'm getting into my last paragraph.

Next, one of the things I mentioned was it depends on the situation. I gave him that in a one on one fight, with no weapons MMA could be more effective (it is after all the focus). But I mentioned that TMA also uses weapons, weapon defense, and some do mutli opponent pseudo-situation training. What about this, one on one, one on mutli and weapons employment, could that make any differnce?

What about my earlier mention of application, does that change something from being a traditional art to a pseudo-MMA style? He also mentioned the origin of mixed martial arts. He says they came about when some one went through an entire system, and realised it doesn't work. So, set person, found what worked best, and added Muay Thai and Ju Justu to supplement. Is this at all accurate? It seems to be a little hard to believe, since most of the MMA fighters I have seen, do more-or-less the same thing as every one else.

And don't worry, I'm going to find some MMA stylists to help this discussion.

 

[Tez3]

First of all you folks misintripted what I mean by philosophy. In this case I mean the philosophy of "mma"/"tma". Otherwise I wouldn't bother to put it down, it seems unrelated.

Next, some folks mentioned application. In the orginal discussion, I did mention application. His response confused me. It was something about how it's not the original martial art anymore, because you changed it to suit the person doing it. I had a hard time trying to explain that that is part of the kata, well ok, he completely missed it.

Also, 2 or 3 people mention being battle tested. Several traditional martial arts have been "battle tested", in some way. I know styles like Shotokan, Judo, Wing Chun, old school Tae Kwon Do (in America, I question if it'll work too well, only because of the large number of mcdojos/pseudomcdojos), and I know Cuong Nhu has been. But has any MMA style been "battle tested"? Has someone like Pat Miletich been in a "real" fight?

Someone also mentioned how one trains. Few traditionalists train in what could be considered a "real" manner. But, how many MMA fighters train in a "real" manner? I'm not questioning the effectiveness of MMA, but how many have (say) been in a sparring match with no ref? Or in street clothes? Or what resemble them?

Still learning mentioned nothing works like the real thing. The goal of someone training for self defense would be to as closely as possible match what a fight would be like. And at this point I'm getting into my last paragraph.

Next, one of the things I mentioned was it depends on the situation. I gave him that in a one on one fight, with no weapons MMA could be more effective (it is after all the focus). But I mentioned that TMA also uses weapons, weapon defense, and some do mutli opponent pseudo-situation training. What about this, one on one, one on mutli and weapons employment, could that make any differnce?

What about my earlier mention of application, does that change something from being a traditional art to a pseudo-MMA style? He also mentioned the origin of mixed martial arts. He says they came about when some one went through an entire system, and realised it doesn't work. So, set person, found what worked best, and added Muay Thai and Ju Justu to supplement. Is this at all accurate? It seems to be a little hard to believe, since most of the MMA fighters I have seen, do more-or-less the same thing as every one else.

And don't worry, I'm going to find some MMA stylists to help this discussion.

I teach, train and fight MMA and to be honest I'm really not sure what you are after here. We train specifically for fights in the ring/cage.We know who our opponent will be and train for that fight. We do self defence as a separate class as the two are not necessarily compatible. There are rules to follow in MMA which is a sport, a competition. There are no rules when defending yourself such as no attacking fingers, no groin stikes etc. Many people who train MMA are also grades in tradtional arts including weapons. Perhaps the philosophy of MMA is as I have said elsewhere is to win the fight fairly and well. The philosophy of self defence is I think "survive". did any one person 'invent' MMA? I doubt it, the first recorded use of 'MMA' is in the early Olympics as Pankration. I imagine thoughout the ages people when fighting have used all and every means to win. Many traditional styles I believe have more than just one type of movement in,I know Wado Ryu encompasses throws and takedowns from juijitsu in it. I'm sure others can tell us their styles contain more than just kicks and punches etc.

 

[Sukerkin]

That was a very good post, Tez. I've built up a bit of a prejudice against MMA just from the comments of some of it's proponents and you've made me reconsider my stance with that :tup:.

As to why I was getting a negative impression, I think it was the 'cage fighting' motif backed up by too many of the "MMA is the roxxors!" type postlets that are swimming around the Net.

Your post shows me that what I've read elsewhere was probably a case of the ones shouting loudest understanding the least :tup:.

 

[Tez3]

Sukerkin, from what I've read on here and from what people here have told me MMA in the States and over here seems to be almost two different things.I'm not sure whether this is becausw we are perhaps a couple of years behind the Americans or that we view martial arts ingeneral differntly. I know that over here we seem to have a more relaxed atittude to martial arts in general in that we don't do the lineage thing and for a very long time martial artist here have crossed trained. Perhaps being a smaller country we interact more with others?
Over here we do still get the ones who brag that MMA is the be all and end all of martial arts but I tend to think that's the person bragging, they would do so whatever they trained in. I know nearly all the fighters and clubs in this country and have found very few who are arrogant. Most treat it as a sport though a serious sport! We have a fair few doormen/security people who do the sport and they will be the first to tell you that in a real fight the situation is different from fighting in a competition though of course it does help if you have some experience in any kind of competitive fighting.
We have our next show in Catterick in July, come across as my guest and I'll introduce you around ( you may end up doing a job like timekeeping though lol!) and you can make your mind up at first hand with us. It's not one of the big shows and is almost 'cosy' in it's atmosphere lol!

 

[CuongNhuka]

Sukerkin, from what I've read on here and from what people here have told me MMA in the States and over here seems to be almost two different things.

And that is why I have little respect for most MMA-ers. Many here in the states act like over grown childern. Many, not all. And you're really the only MMA-er here, I think the discussion might be better with more then just you and a few TMA-ers.

And what I mean is do you think the way most MMA-ers train could make it so they would react in a very diffenrit way if the fight is one on one with no weapons compared to anything else. For instince, lets say (just as an example) would Chuck Leddel freak out if some one pulled a knife on him in a dark ally? How would that reaction compare to some idiot taking swing at him in a bar? If that makes any sense.

It seems (from what I've heard) outside the U.S. people look at MMA fights as something other then a prooving ground for everything. People realsie that in fight, you cann't exactly tap out, or get the ref to end it. Just what it seems. And one of my complaints about MMA-style fights.

One thing I beleif would make MMA fights more realisitic is to add weapons (like just before the fight begins, you find out one person or the other will have a bat, fun stuff like that). Or to make it two on one. Or have one person start the fight sitting down. One of my major gripps is that things like this aren't done in MMA fights. My Cuong Nhu school doesn't do full contact (as a safetly precaution), but we do include grappling in our matches. Sometimes one person will sit down, or will be given a foam weapon, or so on. Aside from my previse grippes the unifrom also annonys me. In a street fight, you aren't likely to be wearing just shorts. The UFC claims to the "be all, end all" of self defense, "If it doesn't work there, it doesn't work". But really all I see is a more realistic level of contact. I'm sure schools train for these situations, in some way, but because they aren't done in fights, it makes me think that UFC-style fights aren't all that realistic.

Are my ramblings makeing any kind of sense?

 

[MJS]

And that is why I have little respect for most MMA-ers. Many here in the states act like over grown childern. Many, not all. And you're really the only MMA-er here, I think the discussion might be better with more then just you and a few TMA-ers.

And what I mean is do you think the way most MMA-ers train could make it so they would react in a very diffenrit way if the fight is one on one with no weapons compared to anything else. For instince, lets say (just as an example) would Chuck Leddel freak out if some one pulled a knife on him in a dark ally? How would that reaction compare to some idiot taking swing at him in a bar? If that makes any sense.

It seems (from what I've heard) outside the U.S. people look at MMA fights as something other then a prooving ground for everything. People realsie that in fight, you cann't exactly tap out, or get the ref to end it. Just what it seems. And one of my complaints about MMA-style fights.

One thing I beleif would make MMA fights more realisitic is to add weapons (like just before the fight begins, you find out one person or the other will have a bat, fun stuff like that). Or to make it two on one. Or have one person start the fight sitting down. One of my major gripps is that things like this aren't done in MMA fights. My Cuong Nhu school doesn't do full contact (as a safetly precaution), but we do include grappling in our matches. Sometimes one person will sit down, or will be given a foam weapon, or so on. Aside from my previse grippes the unifrom also annonys me. In a street fight, you aren't likely to be wearing just shorts. The UFC claims to the "be all, end all" of self defense, "If it doesn't work there, it doesn't work". But really all I see is a more realistic level of contact. I'm sure schools train for these situations, in some way, but because they aren't done in fights, it makes me think that UFC-style fights aren't all that realistic.

Are my ramblings makeing any kind of sense?

IMO, I'd say that it all depends on how the person trains. If someone primarily trains for the ring, then chances are, they may be lost if faced with a weapon, mult. attackers, etc. If they touch on other aspects outside of the ring, then perhaps they'd stand a better chance.

As I said, MMA has alot to offer. TMA has alot to offer as well. If someone wishes to think that one is the best, thats their opinion, and looking back at some of the threads regarding that issue, neither you or anyone else is going to change their mind.

Mike

 

[Sukerkin]

Thank you very much for that invite, Tez :tup:.

PM me with the details and I'll see what can be arranged. If nothing else it'd be good to meet a Net-name in person and seeing MMA with my own eyes can only be an education.

 

[Sukerkin]

As I said, MMA has alot to offer. TMA has alot to offer as well. If someone wishes to think that one is the best, thats their opinion, and looking back at some of the threads regarding that issue, neither you or anyone else is going to change their mind.

Mike

That is oh-so-true, MJS.

One of the biggest problems encountered in trying to discuss things of any seriousness via fora is that words-on-a-screen are seldom going to uproot a deeply entrenched position.

That said, I've found that MartialTalk has a number of intelligent, eloquent and even-handed members who can have quite a good stab at putting forward a convincing argument.

Okay, we have our share of 'back-fires' and misunderstandings (like the one on 'what actually constitutes a martial artist' thread(s)) but the fora still represent the broadest 'church' we have general access to to discuss such things.

Because of that, altho' it can be annoying for the same topics to keep surfacing again and again and again, there is always the chance that someone will post up a golden nugget of opinion or information that is just what someone else needs.

I guess that that's a "Huzzar!" for diverse and conflicting opinions, in a round-about way ... which coming from someone who'd rather promote concensus and harmony is a touch ironic .

 

[exile]

That is oh-so-true, MJS.

One of the biggest problems encountered in trying to discuss things of any seriousness via fora is that words-on-a-screen are seldom going to uproot a deeply entrenched position.

That said, I've found that MartialTalk has a number of intelligent, eloquent and even-handed members who can have quite a good stab at putting forward a convincing argument.

Okay, we have our share of 'back-fires' and misunderstandings (like the one on 'what actually constitutes a martial artist' thread(s)) but the fora still represent the broadest 'church' we have general access to to discuss such things.

Because of that, altho' it can be annoying for the same topics to keep surfacing again and again and again, there is always the chance that someone will post up a golden nugget of opinion or information that is just what someone else needs.

I guess that that's a "Huzzar!" for diverse and conflicting opinions, in a round-about way ... which coming from someone who'd rather promote concensus and harmony is a touch ironic .

This whole post is a lead contender, in my mind, for an official MartialTalk credo, if there were such a thing. There isn't—but long may we all post as though there were, and this were it!

 

[CuongNhuka]

Exile, just who I was hopeing for. I tried to send you a private message, but your inbox is full. I thought you would have something productive to post... well? Were is your productive post? I whole heartedly agree with Sukerkin, but you got nothing else? (by the way sukerkin, check your user cp)

As you folks may have noticed, I'm trying to keep the discussion going by imputing random thougts and grippes. With that in mind, lets annalise something my brother in law said.
"If you control all the variables, I think that someone trained in MMA will win more often then a Traditionalist". After some annalisation, it occured to me that if you control all possible variables (as he suggested) the result would be a draw, constantly. That would include training time, intensity, skill level, years of training, opponent under same situations, same situation, same mental state, same luck. The result would be a draw. Agree, disagree, or am I over thinking this?

 

[Tez3]

Exile, just who I was hopeing for. I tried to send you a private message, but your inbox is full. I thought you would have something productive to post... well? Were is your productive post? I whole heartedly agree with Sukerkin, but you got nothing else? (by the way sukerkin, check your user cp)

As you folks may have noticed, I'm trying to keep the discussion going by imputing random thougts and grippes. With that in mind, lets annalise something my brother in law said.
"If you control all the variables, I think that someone trained in MMA will win more often then a Traditionalist". After some annalisation, it occured to me that if you control all possible variables (as he suggested) the result would be a draw, constantly. That would include training time, intensity, skill level, years of training, opponent under same situations, same situation, same mental state, same luck. The result would be a draw. Agree, disagree, or am I over thinking this?

Poor Exile, we are all nagging him about his in box!
Why would we want to make MMA more realistic? It's the most realistic MMA there is! MMA isn't self defence as such. Would MMA practicioners do better than a TMA practicioner if faced with weapons? Mmm, hard question. Some would as they work the doors and are used to being attacked by all sorts, some would because they can 'jump' into that aggression thing quickly when attacked, some would because they train self defence. Some wouldn't because they wouldn't see it coming or would freeze in the street. Again I think it comes down to the old adage it's not the art its the person. (there should be an icon for cliche warning lol)
We don't 'market' MMA as self defence very much here though obviously it has applications and many of the drills can be adjusted for self defence.A lot of what we are taught in our club in self defence would be illegal in a competition anyway. Over here at least the division between MMA and TMA isn't very big, probably because like ourselves many clubs teach. One of our fighters is currently grading in TSD. Others are grading in BJJ.
I have said before and at the risk of being boring will repeat it. When we train for a MMA fight we train to fight a specific person, we learn their weaknesses and their strengths then plan our tactics in the fight accordingly. Self defence is a whole different thing as is to a certain extent the control and restraint we do in our club (we have security and door people who are always keen to learn new things)

Sukerkin, will pm you asap!

 

[exile]

Exile, just who I was hopeing for. I tried to send you a private message, but your inbox is full. I thought you would have something productive to post... well? Were is your productive post?

Hi CN—between taking advantage of this surrealistically beautiful to get some gardening in (under some duress, as I'm not the obsessive gardener in my family), and the various agonisms going on on the martial artist/ethics thread, I've barely had time to clear out my pm file, let alone post usefully... but I promise to get back to this thread as soon as I'm off gardening duty!

My pm file now has some space... sorry about that. I usually can keep ahead of the game, but for some reason my time resources seem to have been sucked into a black hole somewhere, if that's not too mixed a metaphor!

More asap... I really think everyone is mostly on the same page, from what I've seen, and as far as the rest, we can split the difference... :wink1: But more on the details later.... I'm actually posting this Illegally, if you know what I mean... but before I am discovered, just a quick underline:

I have said before and at the risk of being boring will repeat it. When we train for a MMA fight we train to fight a specific person, we learn their weaknesses and their strengths then plan our tactics in the fight accordingly. Self defence is a whole different thing as is to a certain extent the control and restraint we do in our club (we have security and door people who are always keen to learn new things)

As you probably know by now, I agree with this approach completely, but it's not just MMA; it's also Olympic TKD, sport karate and what seems to be going on in one of the Kempo threads involving something called `sport kempo' whose existence I was unaware of. The problem isn't MMA per se, it's competition conditions vs. street conditions. Uh uh.. gotta run, nudgenudge winkwink... more later....

 

[Tez3]

Ooooh just had a mental picture of Mrs. Exile cracking the whip!:whip1:

I can't speak though, have to get to bed, I'm at work early in the morning! While I'm at work I will try to think of something really original to post on the MMA/TMA discussion here!

 

[exile]

Ooooh just had a mental picture of Mrs. Exile cracking the whip!:whip1:

That wonderful line of... Voltaire's????... `Mightier than all the armies is an idea whose time has come'... needs to supplemented by the followup: `...or a woman who thinks that the garden is looking really terrible and what if people drop in??'.

... back to work... now you know why half my posts are sent sometime after 2:00 a.m...

 

[CuongNhuka]

Tez mentioned that in Britian most people dont go MMA = will work in a fight. In the U.S., we haven't quite figured that out. The UFC (I'm geussing you've heard) claims to be completely realistic. That if it doesn't work in the octagon, it wont work period. Its the be all, end all of martial arts.

And Exile, that was Tez's line, not mine. Great to see you! Post when you get the chance!

I'm coming to realise that my brother in law is simply been feed a line (in the form of the UFC's hype) and is now oblivous to reason. Although, I'm still enjoying this thread, and would like to see it continue. If only I could think of anything else to post...

 

[exile]

Tez mentioned that in Britian most people dont go MMA = will work in a fight. In the U.S., we haven't quite figured that out. The UFC (I'm geussing you've heard) claims to be completely realistic. That if it doesn't work in the octagon, it wont work period. Its the be all, end all of martial arts.

And Exile, that was Tez's line, not mine. Great to see you! Post when you get the chance!

Yes—sorry Tez—I screwed up the copy/paste sequence.

I'm coming to realise that my brother in law is simply been feed a line (in the form of the UFC's hype) and is now oblivous to reason. Although, I'm still enjoying this thread, and would like to see it continue. If only I could think of anything else to post...

This is a line a lot of people buy. But take heart. Once upon a time, it was the same line, except it was about JKD. I remember when that was the rage in the... what, 1970s??? Long enough ago that I don't remember when. Then it was the mystic Ninja arts, a view recently promoted in that steaming pile `Fight Science' that National Geographic put together (really, they should stick to the Serengetti and polar bears in the high Arctic—that, they know something about!) I see this as a cyclical phenomenon: MMA is simply the non-traditional flavor of the month. It will pass, and we'll see something else in ten years or so.

Although... conditions are a little different, because of the mass viewer audience factor. Now we have a number of fans who are really clueless about the technicalities of either the MMAs or the TMAs who watch this stuff in the same way that people who would crash a Formula 1 car within a hundred yards of the start follow the Grand Prix circuit avidly (analgously with Nascar). So whereas before these were developments within largely within the MA family, the nature of the `debate' (wrong word but have to hurry and post before, um, anyone catches me at my laptop) has changed in a certain basic way. I think it's easier for people like Tez, who have expertise in both MMA and TMA, because in the UK, people are a bit less hysterical and partisan about these things.

On the other hand, she has to live on the same island as all those chavs... so I guess there are compensations to being on this side of the pond...

Gotta flee. This is getting too risky. See you again sometime in the dead of night, probably...

 

[Sukerkin]

Gotta flee. This is getting too risky. See you again sometime in the dead of night, probably...

I concur with the contents of all the post I've just quoted a snippet from but that last made me laugh out loud with recognition of domestic circumstance ... plus, the 'dead of night' bit made me chortle especially because Exile and I seem to somehow often breach time and space and be up and talking here at the same time, despite being on different continents !

 

[tellner]

This is going to be a little different than the one one you usually hear. Normally the TMA or NMA (No Martial Arts) types say one of the following:

1. What if there's more than one?
2. What if they have weapons?
3. What if they fight dirty?
4. The Octagon has a nice soft floor. Teh D34dl33 Str33t(tm) doesn't.
5. The UFC has rules

More Than One

That certainly does change things. But you know what? Most martial arts don't teach you how to deal with more than one attacker. I'm really not impressed with "Our katas contain the Ancient Wisdom that includes fighting more than one person" or all its variants. That includes most bunkai for more than one person or any number of pre-set demos. Fighting multiple attackers is not the same as fighting one. It's not the same as fighting one person at a time several times. It's a discipline that has its own techniques, principles, training methods and logic. Almost nobody teaches it. And you know what? Since most MMA types are serious Body Nazis they'll likely have a better chance than many or most TMAs.

Weapons

Again, most people don't know how to use weapons very well. And they know even less about how to defend against them. I haven't seen a single straight out of the box modern Japanese, Chinese or Korean style that does a bang-up job of it. Certain teachers, certainly, but it's rare. And even then a lot of the weapons defense is against things like swords and staves which are less than completely useful in everyday situations. The Krabi Krabong, FMA, Silat and others like that have a better chance of being decently trained in it. If the MMA types aren't specialists in using or defending against weapons it makes them no worse than most of us. And an awful lot cross-train in Eskrima.

What if They Fight Dirty

See above. Also, it's not like a guy who does Thai boxing and Submission Wrestling has never heard of eyes, throats, teeth or gonads.

Surfaces

There's something to this. Hard uneven surfaces make throws more effective. A Judo player, for instance, gets a few points for the ability to throw someone really hard onto something really hard. And there are wrestling takedowns that I would do on the map that would put me at risk of injury if I did them on concrete. Again, is your stuff any better at this? Can you fall as well as the MMA guys? Are your throws good enough to counter their skill at falling? These are not trivial questions.

Rules

True. There aren't many rules in a real fight. There are no rounds or cornermen. And the ref isn't going to stop the fight. That applies to you as well as to the knuckle-dragger in Speedos. It certainly doesn't make him any worse than most TMA let alone NMA guys. This gets to the heart of the matter, but not in the way it would seem. The answer to the question is another question, an engineer's question: "What problem are you trying to solve?"

In a MMA match you are trying to knock the other guy out, make him submit or impress the judges enough so that they say you were better. Other than throwing in the towel you will be in the appointed place at the prescribed time and fight that person until one of you stops or the time runs out. Everyone knows the goal. Everyone knows the rules.

A fight can be similar. It can also be much different.

A lot depends on what the people are fighting over. What do they want? How much is it worth to them? Sometimes the one who makes the prize cost too much can get what he or she wants by making the other guy decide it just isn't worth it. Think of Aesop's fable of the Hound and the Hare or the cat who made the 'coon back down. Or one can lose by the other guy's lights but still achieve the goal. A person who has been beaten up but showed courage and didn't give in can gain status in the eyes of the people watching which might be what he was after.

In a prize fight you don't have to worry that the other guy is nuts or practicing Mexican Judo (Ju don' know if I got a gun. Ju don' know if my vatos are standing behind you. Ju don' know what I'm gonna do). You have a clear idea of when it will end and what you have to do. What you want is already decided.

If this weren't true self defense by those smaller, weaker or unarmed simply wouldn't work. But it does because it takes advantage of the uncertainties and asymmetries of a hostile encounter.

Once again, most TMA and NMA types are no better than the bulk of the MMA people.

 

[green meanie]

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.

1) Does philosophy matter? That depends. What are trying to teach? Do you need philosophy to be a good fighter? Probably not. Do you need philosophy to be a good martial artist? I happen to think so but I could be wrong.

2) Can MMA be more effective than TMA? Yes. Can TMA be more effective than MMA? Yes. I don't think one art is inherently better than another although I do think there's times when one art will match up well against another because it's strength specifically targets the others weakness. But as far as I'm concerned it's still just a big game of rock - paper - scissors with no single art ever being the only solution to every problem.

:asian:

 

[exile]

I concur with the contents of all the post I've just quoted a snippet from but that last made me laugh out loud with recognition of domestic circumstance ...

Aha, a fellow...covert poster, possibly? You know how it is, clearly!

plus, the 'dead of night' bit made me chortle especially because Exile and I seem to somehow often breach time and space and be up and talking here at the same time, despite being on different continents !

Some of that is due (at my end, anyway) to a bizarro sleep cycle that gets weirder and weirder the older I get. It wasn't supposed to work that way... they told me when I was a mere lad that as time goes on it become easier to get regular sleep... What liars `they' turned out to be!!

CN's thread really is interesting and important, and while the topic has come up many times before, it's always a bit different in how it develops. This seems to me to be one of the better discussions of the issues involved...