East vs. West - Is it Semantics Over Time?

[Gerry Seymour]

as i think about it more the blockbuster/ netflix is a really good analogy.
do you remember where todays MMA started? UFC traditional style vs traditional style.

Agreed. And that was what I was getting at. The real difference is that Netflix followed market trends and opportunities - it evolved. We can still see the base in there (same "principles"), but the current business model is significantly changed from what it was. The same can be said for MMA. Same basic principles (mostly inherited from the systems that competed and worked), but a different overall composition than it used to be.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No it's not really, Netflix started do exactly the same thing as blockbusters, except without have to go out in the rain , find parking or stand in a queue whilst someone with learning difficulties tried to book vids on and out it played on the basic human instincta of laziness, the product it's self was exactly the same, just more convenient.

Mma, is a superior product and one that takes a lot more effort to be good at , it's the very opposite of more convenient,

Oddly, I think that last sentence is something that's open for debate. I've often heard both MMA and TMA folks say that TMA has stuff that makes it take longer (makes it harder) to learn. MMA is typically more simplified, and is probably the easier approach to learn, because of that.

 

[jobo]

Oddly, I think that last sentence is something that's open for debate. I've often heard both MMA and TMA folks say that TMA has stuff that makes it take longer (makes it harder) to learn. MMA is typically more simplified, and is probably the easier approach to learn, because of that.

That depends how your assesing"good "! and effort !

To be good at mma, requires you to be able to beat other people who Re also quite good at fighting, a considerable number of tmaers, no matter how long they train never achieve that. The training is to the most part not as physically demanding as mma, training, so less effort expended per hour of training, and the bbj, eminent is It's self a long haul to be good at

 

[jobo]

Agreed. And that was what I was getting at. The real difference is that Netflix followed market trends and opportunities - it evolved. We can still see the base in there (same "principles"), but the current business model is significantly changed from what it was. The same can be said for MMA. Same basic principles (mostly inherited from the systems that competed and worked), but a different overall composition than it used to be.

No not really, there are layers to this, the ufc,a business model is to put on a show that people will pay to watch that's it and all it consists of,Plus a load of hype,

Th business model of clubs teaching mma, is much the same as any ma class get people in charge them mone.y

The advantage they have is that ufc, acts as a free advertising campaign for them, much as kUng fu films did in the past,

 

[Flying Crane]

Oddly, I think that last sentence is something that's open for debate. I've often heard both MMA and TMA folks say that TMA has stuff that makes it take longer (makes it harder) to learn. MMA is typically more simplified, and is probably the easier approach to learn, because of that.

I disagree with this. Nothing about TMA is designed to deliberately make it harder to learn or take longer to learn.

A better way of looking at it is that the TMA approach, when done properly, begins with building a strong foundation and there is no hurry to shortcut that process because doing it right takes time and work. When the foundation is properly built, the rest of it comes more quickly and is much more effective. This is seen as good practice that one can continue with for the rest of ones life, meaning you are not limited to the years of your youth when you are at your physical prime.

A faster way to get results is to skip the foundation building, or hurry through it. Yes, you can get useful results that way, and it can be done more quickly. However, this method has a heavier reliance on athleticism and youth, and you might not be able to keep at it through your older years.

So I would characterize the two approaches described above as one being focused on long-term capabilities and a willingness to be patient in building those skills, while the other is more concerned with quick results and perhaps isn’t concerned with long-term capabilities.

Exactly where MMA typically falls on this continuum (if it is even possible to describe what is “typical”) I wouldn’t know, as I have minimal experience with it, even as a spectator.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That depends how your assesing"good "! and effort !

To be good at mma, requires you to be able to beat other people who Re also quite good at fighting, a considerable number of tmaers, no matter how long they train never achieve that. The training is to the most part not as physically demanding as mma, training, so less effort expended per hour of training, and the bbj, eminent is It's self a long haul to be good at

Okay, so if you say MMA typically has higher standards, that's a different thing. We can't compare two things and say one is harder if we're not comparing them on the same measure.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No not really, there are layers to this, the ufc,a business model is to put on a show that people will pay to watch that's it and all it consists of,Plus a load of hype,

Th business model of clubs teaching mma, is much the same as any ma class get people in charge them mone.y

The advantage they have is that ufc, acts as a free advertising campaign for them, much as kUng fu films did in the past,

It's not comparing business models. He was using "business model" as an analogy.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I disagree with this. Nothing about TMA is designed to deliberately make it harder to learn or take longer to learn.

A better way of looking at it is that the TMA approach, when done properly, begins with building a strong foundation and there is no hurry to shortcut that process because doing it right takes time and work. When the foundation is properly built, the rest of it comes more quickly and is much more effective. This is seen as good practice that one can continue with for the rest of ones life, meaning you are not limited to the years of your youth when you are at your physical prime.

A faster way to get results is to skip the foundation building, or hurry through it. Yes, you can get useful results that way, and it can be done more quickly. However, this method has a heavier reliance on athleticism and youth, and you might not be able to keep at it through your older years.

So I would characterize the two approaches described above as one being focused on long-term capabilities and a willingness to be patient in building those skills, while the other is more concerned with quick results and perhaps isn’t concerned with long-term capabilities.

Exactly where MMA typically falls on this continuum (if it is even possible to describe what is “typical”) I wouldn’t know, as I have minimal experience with it, even as a spectator.

I didn't say it was deliberately made to take longer. I think it just doesn't have a good focus on shortening the learning curve. If it did, the number of new movements involved in the first year would be much smaller for most arts. Boxing is probably the best example. You get to focus on punches and the defense against them, so progress in that area can be made faster. Add kicks? That might be "better", but it will certainly also mean a longer learning curve.

A focus on competition tends to weed out what doesn't work in competition (or isn't reliable there, or is seldom available there) in favor of spending more time on what most commonly works reliably. That tends to be a relatively short list, compared to a list of all that could be used in that context (ignoring what might be useful outside that context also increases focus).

 

[dvcochran]

Amalgamation has always been part of fighting art development. Somebody knew some stuff and taught someone else. That person figured something else out, and saw some other dude do something he could copy, and added both of those to the original stuff. Another group follows the same process. Then some wise guy comes along and trains with both groups, figures out the principles are close enough to flow between both easily, and takes his favorite subset of each to make a new "stuff".

There's a problem that happens, though, at times: people decide the stuff they learned was perfect. Because the guy who taught them (or the guy who organized it originally) was extra-special. At that point, those people stop improving that stuff, and start teaching it less and less for effectiveness and more for preservation - attempting to replicate exactly what they were taught. Sometimes that's because they believe their kind of stuff is different from all other kinds of stuff, so shouldn't be mixed, lest they ruin their stuff.

The reality: the human body only moves so many ways. Put a few thousand people studying ways to put people on the ground, and a bunch of them will come up with strikingly similar answers, and a bunch of different names for the same thing (and a bunch of the same name for different things).

The world has certainly gotten smaller and common knowledge is becoming the norm across continents. I can allow my traditional teachings to get in the way of new learning if I let it. I do think some of the esoteric teachings are being lost and that is sad. Maybe they are no longer needed and the steep curve of todays learning doesn't allow for them. The days of only being able to beat on each other of maybe a tree or a stump are long gone. I hope the amalgamation continues but never loses the Martial Spirit.

 

[Martial D]

Oddly, I think that last sentence is something that's open for debate. I've often heard both MMA and TMA folks say that TMA has stuff that makes it take longer (makes it harder) to learn. MMA is typically more simplified, and is probably the easier approach to learn, because of that.

I'm not so sure about that. As a guy that spent years doing both I have found the opposite to be true. Most TMAs dont cover 'everything'. MMA requires all 8 standing weapons, as well as using those same weapons on the ground and clinch, as well as a full arsenal of throws, trips, shoots, wrestling and submissions. That's a lot to learn compared to a more traditional art typically devoted to only a couple of those things.

And that is to say nothing of the fitness levels required..


edit - although I do get the point that some styles of striking or grappling specifically take longer than others to learns for various reasons.

 

[Flying Crane]

I didn't say it was deliberately made to take longer. I think it just doesn't have a good focus on shortening the learning curve. If it did, the number of new movements involved in the first year would be much smaller for most arts. Boxing is probably the best example. You get to focus on punches and the defense against them, so progress in that area can be made faster. Add kicks? That might be "better", but it will certainly also mean a longer learning curve.

A focus on competition tends to weed out what doesn't work in competition (or isn't reliable there, or is seldom available there) in favor of spending more time on what most commonly works reliably. That tends to be a relatively short list, compared to a list of all that could be used in that context (ignoring what might be useful outside that context also increases focus).

I guess what I was focusing on was your comment about having stuff that makes it HARDER to learn. It doesn’t make it harder. It simply has a different concept of what is the right way to go about it. And that methodology in training does typically take longer. It is a different mindset.

As for the number of moves in the first year (for discussion purposes) I think that is a problem with the short attention span of modern society. Remember all the stories of Kung fu students spending the first six months to a year doing nothing but horse stance? Followed by months of just one or two punches, before they begin to learn other things? Sounds to me like a pretty short list for the first year or two.

I think modern society wants to be entertained, and demands more stuff in a hurry, so teachers cave and give them what they want, or risk having no students. That is an interesting thought, as I am in the middle of starting a training group in my community. I’ll try to keep this in mind, and see how well I can stay on track and encourage students to build their foundation properly, without being in a hurry.

As to your comments on competition, I don’t see anything to disagree with there.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm not so sure about that. As a guy that spent years doing both I have found the opposite to be true. Most TMAs dont cover 'everything'. MMA requires all 8 standing weapons, as well as using those same weapons on the ground and clinch, as well as a full arsenal of throws, trips, shoots, wrestling and submissions. That's a lot to learn compared to a more traditional art typically devoted to only a couple of those things.

And that is to say nothing of the fitness levels required..


edit - although I do get the point that some styles of striking or grappling specifically take longer than others to learns for various reasons.

Okay, I'll grant that if you cover the full range vs covering part of that range, it might take longer. But let's compare the number of kicks and strikes taught in most striking arts. Then look at how many are commonly used in MMA. You could develop competency in the common MMA strikes in a much shorter time than in the range taught in most striking arts. That was my point. I actually like that TMA often has extra techniques and stuff to fiddle with. I love fiddling. Once you've got a decent base of skills, fiddling is really where most of us like to spend our time, in my experience. We want to tweak and get things feeling more simple and less effortful. We practice things that solve problems we could solve with the techniques already in that base, but this new technique is, well, new. And it's challenging, so it gives us something to tinker with.

I'm sure some of the same happens with folks who train MMA long enough. I certainly see some of it in BJJ folks, many of whom are every bit as cerebral after a point as any TMA-er I know.

But let's go back to the typical TMA approach - and I know that's averaging some things that aren't very similar, so accept it for the thought experiment it is, please. There's a fair amount of long, slow drilling of stances and postures that we tend to think of as "foundation" but which boxing and MMA approach differently. Yep, they still have stances, but they tend to focus on them less, use ones that are closer to "normal" movement, and only really point them out when there's a real issue. It doesn't matter whether your foot is pointing exactly 45 degrees, as long as your balance and mobility are appropriate.

And remember, I actually really tend to prefer parts of the TMA approach. I like how it works. I also know there are parts of it that aren't about learning faster, nor even really about a better foundation (that might have been the objective, but I've seen no clear evidence it actually produces different results).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I guess what I was focusing on was your comment about having stuff that makes it HARDER to learn. It doesn’t make it harder. It simply has a different concept of what is the right way to go about it. And that methodology in training does typically take longer. It is a different mindset.

As for the number of moves in the first year (for discussion purposes) I think that is a problem with the short attention span of modern society. Remember all the stories of Kung fu students spending the first six months to a year doing nothing but horse stance? Followed by months of just one or two punches, before they begin to learn other things? Sounds to me like a pretty short list for the first year or two.

I think modern society wants to be entertained, and demands more stuff in a hurry, so teachers cave and give them what they want, or risk having no students. That is an interesting thought, as I am in the middle of starting a training group in my community. I’ll try to keep this in mind, and see how well I can stay on track and encourage students to build their foundation properly, without being in a hurry.

As to your comments on competition, I don’t see anything to disagree with there.

I can see that. I probably should have said "longer" instead of "harder" (this post is not sounding good!). That example of single stance for extended periods is in line with what I'm talking about, in the opposite direction from what I was pointing to. That's a practice that has benefit, but probably not commensurate with the amount of time spent. If the style in question really needs that stance at that level, it certainly isn't a most efficient path. I'm okay with that, of course - it's a path that suits some folks quite well, and should be there for them.

I was really talking more about what it would take to get through a first fight in MMA vs what it takes to get whatever rank would be 6 months in for a hobbyist. For that MMA fight, a jab, rear straight, and hook might be all the punches you need. Add in a hammerfist for the ground, perhaps, if there's time. Elbows are quick to train, and useful both places, to toss in some time to practice those. Maybe a low round kick (thigh/hip) and a simple front kick for distance control. Don't need either to be great, just to be useful. Takedown? Single-leg and double-leg are probably sufficient, if you even want those. You could go in with just the defense against those (because you can focus as a striker) and a small smattering of other things, mostly using the principles in that set. A couple of basic sweeps and some ground control to bide time to use them, and some time to practice getting shots in from mount and side control. That sounds like a lot, but if we compared to what someone in mainline NGA would get in their first 6 months (depending how fast they progress): 20+ grappling techniques, 3-9 kicks, 4 elbow blows, chop, hammerfist, straight punch, and a smattering of stuff that's not within the testing curriculum, probably including a couple of ground sweeps. Plus some pins, specific defenses to chokes, headlocks, grabs. It's a wide range of stuff. In other arts, you'd replace some of that with memorizing forms and specific combinations. It can get complex quickly. Fewer things to learn leads to faster competence in early training.

 

[Martial D]

Okay, I'll grant that if you cover the full range vs covering part of that range, it might take longer. But let's compare the number of kicks and strikes taught in most striking arts. Then look at how many are commonly used in MMA. You could develop competency in the common MMA strikes in a much shorter time than in the range taught in most striking arts. That was my point. I actually like that TMA often has extra techniques and stuff to fiddle with. I love fiddling. Once you've got a decent base of skills, fiddling is really where most of us like to spend our time, in my experience. We want to tweak and get things feeling more simple and less effortful. We practice things that solve problems we could solve with the techniques already in that base, but this new technique is, well, new. And it's challenging, so it gives us something to tinker with.

I'm sure some of the same happens with folks who train MMA long enough. I certainly see some of it in BJJ folks, many of whom are every bit as cerebral after a point as any TMA-er I know.

But let's go back to the typical TMA approach - and I know that's averaging some things that aren't very similar, so accept it for the thought experiment it is, please. There's a fair amount of long, slow drilling of stances and postures that we tend to think of as "foundation" but which boxing and MMA approach differently. Yep, they still have stances, but they tend to focus on them less, use ones that are closer to "normal" movement, and only really point them out when there's a real issue. It doesn't matter whether your foot is pointing exactly 45 degrees, as long as your balance and mobility are appropriate.

And remember, I actually really tend to prefer parts of the TMA approach. I like how it works. I also know there are parts of it that aren't about learning faster, nor even really about a better foundation (that might have been the objective, but I've seen no clear evidence it actually produces different results).

Im all about fiddling. I have literally spent entire days just refining one strike or movement and extracting variations. In fact I spent 3 straight hours last night just playing with jabs/forward straight punches on my bob. ranges, angles, footwork, timing, structure, power mechanics. It's amazing how much variation you can effectively squeeze from a single technique.

Which is why even if say, boxing has less strikes than karate, it still takes a lifetime to master.

 

[jobo]

Okay, so if you say MMA typically has higher standards, that's a different thing. We can't compare two things and say one is harder if we're not comparing them on the same measure.

but I'm only using ONE measure your disagreeing. Using a bogus measure, mma is physically more demanding than most tma classed ergo its harder,

taking a ling time to learn doesn't make something harder, it makes it easier, if i was to learn karate in 6 months. That would be difficult any one can learn it in 6 years coz that easier

 

[Flying Crane]

I can see that. I probably should have said "longer" instead of "harder" (this post is not sounding good!). That example of single stance for extended periods is in line with what I'm talking about, in the opposite direction from what I was pointing to. That's a practice that has benefit, but probably not commensurate with the amount of time spent. If the style in question really needs that stance at that level, it certainly isn't a most efficient path. I'm okay with that, of course - it's a path that suits some folks quite well, and should be there for them.

I was really talking more about what it would take to get through a first fight in MMA vs what it takes to get whatever rank would be 6 months in for a hobbyist. For that MMA fight, a jab, rear straight, and hook might be all the punches you need. Add in a hammerfist for the ground, perhaps, if there's time. Elbows are quick to train, and useful both places, to toss in some time to practice those. Maybe a low round kick (thigh/hip) and a simple front kick for distance control. Don't need either to be great, just to be useful. Takedown? Single-leg and double-leg are probably sufficient, if you even want those. You could go in with just the defense against those (because you can focus as a striker) and a small smattering of other things, mostly using the principles in that set. A couple of basic sweeps and some ground control to bide time to use them, and some time to practice getting shots in from mount and side control. That sounds like a lot, but if we compared to what someone in mainline NGA would get in their first 6 months (depending how fast they progress): 20+ grappling techniques, 3-9 kicks, 4 elbow blows, chop, hammerfist, straight punch, and a smattering of stuff that's not within the testing curriculum, probably including a couple of ground sweeps. Plus some pins, specific defenses to chokes, headlocks, grabs. It's a wide range of stuff. In other arts, you'd replace some of that with memorizing forms and specific combinations. It can get complex quickly. Fewer things to learn leads to faster competence in early training.

We have a story in our system, an early proponent after the method was brought from Tibet into southern China, who issued a challenge to all comers. Supposedly he defeated some ungodly number of people, using only two different punching techniques to do so.

My Sifu keeps saying, if you just want to be able to fight, you need very little. You just need to be good at it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

but I'm only using ONE measure your disagreeing. Using a bogus measure, mma is physically more demanding than most tma classed ergo its harder,

taking a ling time to learn doesn't make something harder, it makes it easier, if i was to learn karate in 6 months. That would be difficult any one can learn it in 6 years coz that easier

I’m not sure any of that makes sense, man.

 

[Steve]

Oddly, I think that last sentence is something that's open for debate. I've often heard both MMA and TMA folks say that TMA has stuff that makes it take longer (makes it harder) to learn. MMA is typically more simplified, and is probably the easier approach to learn, because of that.

I don’t think mma is simpler. In fact, I think it’s far more complex, if you consider the breadth of skills striking, clinching, standup grappling and ground fighting. I can’t think of a single TMA that is more complicated.

Three things contribute to make MMA SEEM simple: 1 is that the training model produces reliable, repeatable results. 2 is that the training model sheds techniques that are unrealistic. 3 is that the training model encourages evolution and growth.

 

[Steve]

Okay, I'll grant that if you cover the full range vs covering part of that range, it might take longer. But let's compare the number of kicks and strikes taught in most striking arts. Then look at how many are commonly used in MMA. You could develop competency in the common MMA strikes in a much shorter time than in the range taught in most striking arts. That was my point. I actually like that TMA often has extra techniques and stuff to fiddle with. I love fiddling. Once you've got a decent base of skills, fiddling is really where most of us like to spend our time, in my experience. We want to tweak and get things feeling more simple and less effortful. We practice things that solve problems we could solve with the techniques already in that base, but this new technique is, well, new. And it's challenging, so it gives us something to tinker with.

I'm sure some of the same happens with folks who train MMA long enough. I certainly see some of it in BJJ folks, many of whom are every bit as cerebral after a point as any TMA-er I know.

But let's go back to the typical TMA approach - and I know that's averaging some things that aren't very similar, so accept it for the thought experiment it is, please. There's a fair amount of long, slow drilling of stances and postures that we tend to think of as "foundation" but which boxing and MMA approach differently. Yep, they still have stances, but they tend to focus on them less, use ones that are closer to "normal" movement, and only really point them out when there's a real issue. It doesn't matter whether your foot is pointing exactly 45 degrees, as long as your balance and mobility are appropriate.

And remember, I actually really tend to prefer parts of the TMA approach. I like how it works. I also know there are parts of it that aren't about learning faster, nor even really about a better foundation (that might have been the objective, but I've seen no clear evidence it actually produces different results).

How many kicks and punches do you think are taught in a typical MMA gym? Conversely, how many kicks and punches are typically used by traditional martial artists in fights?

Just to note, flying crane set the TMA bar at two techniques. Point being, if you’re comparing your training (or training in general) to actual combat, it’s apples to oranges.

Edit, also first MMA fight really depends on a lot. My school won’t let someone in an MMA match unless they have a blue belt in BJJ, and a similar skill level in striking. While schools vary, this isn’t unusual.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

How many kicks and punches do you think are taught in a typical MMA gym? Conversely, how many kicks and punches are typically used by traditional martial artists in fights?

Just to note, flying crane set the TMA bar at two techniques. Point being, if you’re comparing your training (or training in general) to actual combat, it’s apples to oranges.

Edit, also first MMA fight really depends on a lot. My school won’t let someone in an MMA match unless they have a blue belt in BJJ, and a similar skill level in striking. While schools vary, this isn’t unusual.

As I said, I'm "averaging" some very different approaches in TMA - we have to do that anytime we talk about "TMA", because that's a blanket term that includes some very different approaches. FC went to the other end of the spectrum (I think that might be more prevalent in CMA, but that may be a mistaken understanding), which presents a different issue (and different advantages).

My experience with what MMA schools does is pretty thin, so what I think is common might be less so than I thought. At one end of the spectrum is the 12-week fight prep that @drop bear's gym does - an impressive, intensive program of skill and fitness that takes very little calendar time. I don't think any of the TMA approaches I've seen could match that, even with the same number of hours. From what I've seen of MMA training and low-level fights, they seem to focus on a small number of techniques. I'll say that most of that ("that" = what I've looked at) focuses on the stand-up game first. If a gym starts from a BJJ base, I'd expect a different approach, but BJJ tends to run fewer "techniques" (in quotes, because I'm counting them as I would in my NGA mindset) early on than what I see when I look at TMA grappling. The average BJJ blue belt has how many techniques? Depends how you count them and how the curriculum is delivered, from what I've seen. The time it takes to get blue in BJJ should get someone probably to green in mainline NGA. That'd be 30+ named techniques (plus applications to all of them), (loosely counting) about 10 kicks, 10 hand/arm strikes, 6 blocks, and probably another 20+ unnamed techniques - not even counting some "training techniques" (like ki techniques). My perception (again, based on far less exposure) is that BJJ would have fewer techniques and spend more time on each.