Happy medium between TMA and MMA for self defense?
- Thread starter cfr
- Start date
- Status
No, just about all the top MMA fighters also happen to be very good at some other aspect. They are all excellent wrestlers, kickboxers, Jujitsu fighters or something. They are also very good, perhaps not excellent in other aspects as well.
You seem to have a very low level understanding in what it takes to train MMA, as do many others it seems. MMA is not a simple "Pick up the basics and hope in the ring sport"
It is a very complex sport, which overlaps with others, but is unique, with it's own strategies, it's own principals, and it's own techniques. Nothing in there is simple. A "simple" thing, like holding guard as you state above, is a very complex skill. Simply learning to hold guard and defend, not sweep, not attack, not escape, just stall is something that could be trained for months and still not fully mastered.
The question is, can a happy medium be found, I believe it can. But the first step is respect and understanding. Beliefs like this about MMA are as falacious as all the things you bang your head on the desk when you see MMA fans spout. And with those beliefs no medium can be reached on either side.
Kwan Jang
Purple Belt
Going back to the original topic, I feel my instructor has done a very good job of incorperating a very effective mix of TMA, MMA, and RBSD. IMO, MMA is basically the next step in the evolution of the martial arts. However, some of it's practitioners and even more of it's fans are more about revolution than evolution (and many can be quite revolting at times). Far too many are very quick to want to "throw out the baby with the bathwater".
Our schools (Ernie Reyes' World/West Coast MA Assn.) came from a traditional Korean base of TKD, Hapkido and Yudo. About 1978-9, KJN Ernie started cross training in the FMA's and started teaching it to his senior students (we were all just red belt-1st dans back then). In 1980, he and KJN Tony started some serious cross training in kickboxing, both American and Muay Thai, so this became a large part of our 2nd dan cirriculum. We have cross trained many other systems sice then, but the ones that have stuck are BJJ (starting when Ralf and Cesar Gracie first moved over) and Submission Grappling and NHB (Frank Shamrock and Bob Cook have both trained at our headquarters school in Santa Clara, Ca. for several years and taught a black belt class 2x/wk.)
About 5 years ago, KJN's Ernie and Tony (the founders of our assn.) re-vamped our cirriculum from a TKD base that cross trained at different levels (the way I and most of the other master instructors came up) to a full on MMA system right from the start. Instead of being a mix of boxing (BTW, I forgot to mention that we have incorperated boxing in there for decades as well. I was 14-0 as an amatuer boxer myself and IMO, anyone who competes in kickboxing must have good boxing skills), MT, and BJJ. We incorperate a mix of TKD, JJ (both BJJ and SCJJ), MT, the FMA's and incorperate RBSD, as well. So far, it has been doing a really good job of bringing very high quality training to the general public and not just for elite athletes (as many MMA programs do).
Our schools (Ernie Reyes' World/West Coast MA Assn.) came from a traditional Korean base of TKD, Hapkido and Yudo. About 1978-9, KJN Ernie started cross training in the FMA's and started teaching it to his senior students (we were all just red belt-1st dans back then). In 1980, he and KJN Tony started some serious cross training in kickboxing, both American and Muay Thai, so this became a large part of our 2nd dan cirriculum. We have cross trained many other systems sice then, but the ones that have stuck are BJJ (starting when Ralf and Cesar Gracie first moved over) and Submission Grappling and NHB (Frank Shamrock and Bob Cook have both trained at our headquarters school in Santa Clara, Ca. for several years and taught a black belt class 2x/wk.)
About 5 years ago, KJN's Ernie and Tony (the founders of our assn.) re-vamped our cirriculum from a TKD base that cross trained at different levels (the way I and most of the other master instructors came up) to a full on MMA system right from the start. Instead of being a mix of boxing (BTW, I forgot to mention that we have incorperated boxing in there for decades as well. I was 14-0 as an amatuer boxer myself and IMO, anyone who competes in kickboxing must have good boxing skills), MT, and BJJ. We incorperate a mix of TKD, JJ (both BJJ and SCJJ), MT, the FMA's and incorperate RBSD, as well. So far, it has been doing a really good job of bringing very high quality training to the general public and not just for elite athletes (as many MMA programs do).
Something which hasn't seemed to come up in this thread so far is the
idea that a lot of TMAs were, in their most traditional forms, already
pretty mixed. It's well-known by this point, for example, that Anko
Itosu repackaged Okinawan karate as a simple punch/block/kick system
for use in Okinawan schools as part of his campaign to get karate
included in the grade school curriculum---and took some heat from his
fellow masters for this! So an arm-lock forcing the attacker to into
position where a forearm strike to the throat could be delivered might
be sanitized as an innocent-looking inward middle block/rising block
sequence. Itosu defended himself from criticism by pointing out that
the combat application was still there, if you were willing to apply
it. What guys like Iain Abernethy, Simon John O'Neil and others have
been arguing in their detailed analyses of realistic karate/TKD
bunkai is that a full spectrum of fighting techniques---grips and
traps, joint locks, throws, strangles and chokes, neck twists, the
lot---are built into the katas/hyungs of these older striking
systems. Both Egami and Funakoshi make reference to these techniques
in their writing and enthusiastically recommend that fighters expand
their technical arsenals to include them along with standard
striking tactics.
So the problem seems to be not that TMA practicioners need to go to
MMAs to broaden their arts, but---if the Abernethy/O'Neil/Kane &
Wilder analyese of bunkai in terms of combat applications is
right---instead need to recover the full palette of fighting
techniques that are already lurking in their own systems, but which
have become eclipsed by the emergence of sport karate, Olympic-style
TKD, and so on. E.g., Abernethy has a whole *book* about the grappling
applications underlying the katas of familiar karate styles. One of
the really interesting point these guys make is that no only did the
traditional `striking' arts have a full range of techniques at every
fighting range, including grappling skills, but styles known primarily
for grappling, like judo, had in their earlier forms a lot of striking
techniques that have since gone by the wayside. The moral of the
story seems to be that in their most traditional form, TMAs *were*
MMAs---and still are, if their students do the hard work of rethinking
their katas/hyungs/etc. in terms of their original, street-practical
combat meanings.
idea that a lot of TMAs were, in their most traditional forms, already
pretty mixed. It's well-known by this point, for example, that Anko
Itosu repackaged Okinawan karate as a simple punch/block/kick system
for use in Okinawan schools as part of his campaign to get karate
included in the grade school curriculum---and took some heat from his
fellow masters for this! So an arm-lock forcing the attacker to into
position where a forearm strike to the throat could be delivered might
be sanitized as an innocent-looking inward middle block/rising block
sequence. Itosu defended himself from criticism by pointing out that
the combat application was still there, if you were willing to apply
it. What guys like Iain Abernethy, Simon John O'Neil and others have
been arguing in their detailed analyses of realistic karate/TKD
bunkai is that a full spectrum of fighting techniques---grips and
traps, joint locks, throws, strangles and chokes, neck twists, the
lot---are built into the katas/hyungs of these older striking
systems. Both Egami and Funakoshi make reference to these techniques
in their writing and enthusiastically recommend that fighters expand
their technical arsenals to include them along with standard
striking tactics.
So the problem seems to be not that TMA practicioners need to go to
MMAs to broaden their arts, but---if the Abernethy/O'Neil/Kane &
Wilder analyese of bunkai in terms of combat applications is
right---instead need to recover the full palette of fighting
techniques that are already lurking in their own systems, but which
have become eclipsed by the emergence of sport karate, Olympic-style
TKD, and so on. E.g., Abernethy has a whole *book* about the grappling
applications underlying the katas of familiar karate styles. One of
the really interesting point these guys make is that no only did the
traditional `striking' arts have a full range of techniques at every
fighting range, including grappling skills, but styles known primarily
for grappling, like judo, had in their earlier forms a lot of striking
techniques that have since gone by the wayside. The moral of the
story seems to be that in their most traditional form, TMAs *were*
MMAs---and still are, if their students do the hard work of rethinking
their katas/hyungs/etc. in terms of their original, street-practical
combat meanings.
My opinion is this: if you look at everything as combat, you can find common thread and common ground in TMA practices and MMA practices. Cross train to broaden your horizons. There's nothing wrong with doing forms or kata, as long as you know the meanings of the moves and are can test and use them against a resisting opponent. Of course a resisting opponent is not equal to someone really trying to hurt you, but its as close as most of us can get, and its the best way to combatively refine your skills. Muay Thai is actually a very deep art. It does look simplistic on its surface, but it takes years to really become proficient, just like anything else.
zDom
Senior Master
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,081
- Reaction score
- 111
Cfr -- really trying to stay on topic, but its hard not to respond to some of the comments thrown at TMAs, as many of the comments are fallacies, misconceptions and outright lies.
Help me understand what you mean by "integrating" or "merging" both schools of thought.
To me, it seems hard to merge when they are working toward different objectives.
MMA is all about training for the ring, right? Not saying that everybody who does MMA is going to fight in the ring, but that IS where the MMA "school of thought" is based, right? On what is effective in the ring?
- Thread Starter
- #28
I agree with your point 100%, but the objective indicated in this post is self defense.
I like MMA because: Spending much of the training time against a live, resisting opponent makes sense to me.
I like TMA (I don't do much of it mind you) because: We learn techs that are outside the scope of an MMA bout. Techs that I'd probably never learn in an MMA school.
For the record (I dont want to get in trouble with either side here), I train in two garages. 1 is pretty much an MMA guy (boxing, BJJ, etc.), and the other guy is "stripped down" JKD..
Sure it is, merge Wrestling, boxing and BJJ, what do you get? All are very different in goals, and produce something unique.
Sometimes, but not for everyone. Most people that train in MMA will never step into a ring. Does the training have to be geared towards ring work? No, no more then TKD has to be geared towards Olympic style sparring, or Karate to point fighting. It's just one aspect and the most visible one.
For a non-ring based but rather well known example have a look at the Dog Brothers. Same ideas, but with sticks, and without being a "official" sport. But the concepts are the same, set up the environment, provide minimal rules required for safety and see what works when you really go at it with very limited rules. They still punch, kick, wrestle, use submissions, etc.
So if MMA can be merged with weapons fighting, something with different goals, it seems perfectly plausible that it can be merged with self-defence geared training doesn't it?
We work with these applications in my karate class. I don't doubt that similar material to MMA work can be found in kata (ink-blot test) but I wonder why we are trying to discover a way to do something based on one art, when there is a highly developed way of doing it based on other arts that already exist and are practiced this way. I don't see the need to spend hours, days or months trying to figure out how karate might work on the ground when there are JJ people who already know.
I will look forward to seeing some of these people exploring these areas begin to compete. I wonder often what karate was truly meant to look like in action. So much of the art has been lost and there is so far yet to go to get back to where it once was.
zDom
Senior Master
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,081
- Reaction score
- 111
I envision all fighting arts as being part of one mountain.
When you are at the bottom of the mountain first starting on your way up, you don't really see all the much of the other side.
But the closer you get to the peak, the more you are able see of the entire mountain -- even the side that was miles away at the mountain's foot where you started your journey.
When you are at the bottom of the mountain first starting on your way up, you don't really see all the much of the other side.
But the closer you get to the peak, the more you are able see of the entire mountain -- even the side that was miles away at the mountain's foot where you started your journey.
>I will look forward to seeing some of these people exploring these areas >begin to compete. I wonder often what karate was truly meant to look >like in action.
Well, that's the thing---guys like Abernethy, Geoff Thompson and others in that combat-based TMA group aren't interested in sports competition---they're interested in street effectiveness, in some cases because their professions require it. Thompson has a legendary career in the UK as a club bouncer; Lawrence Kane is a crowd-control `enforcer' for the PAC-10 football organization, and Loren Christensen was a special-tactics police officer and advisor/trainer for the military. The kata applications they advocate aren't intended to defeat an opponent on points or even force a submission, but rather to physically damage an opponent on the one strike/one kill principle. They're intended to set up things like knifehand strikes to the throat, full-force punches to the base of the skull, and other severely damaging moves. They argue, on the basis of detailed examination of classic kata and hyung sets, that this approach *was* what karate was meant to look like. Itosu and Matsumura were the bodyguards for the King of Okinawa, and by decree of their Satsuma overlords they had no other weapons than their bodies; their original interest in the fighting system they bequeathed to Funakoshi and others of his generation *had* to one that was both simple at its core and deadly in its application. And the same thing goes for TKD, which General Choi made the unarmed combat system of choice in the ROK army---and which was explicitly intended to be lethal in its application when Korean soldiers were fighting in close quarters with no access to a weapon.
>So much of the art has been lost and there is so far yet to go to >get >back to where it once was.
But what Abernethy and Co. are saying is the old, combat-dedicated art was *preserved*---in the form of its kata. It's just a matter of looking at the moves without taking literally the deceptive `block/punch' coding-up of the katas that Itosu and others used to disguise the orginal *use* of these moves, as traps and locks that were intended not as ends in themselves, but as setups for permanently damaging or fatal strikes to vital targets on the body. Sure, the grappling training that these guys advocate is going to be different from MMA---practicioners of the latter use grappling moves to force submissions, whereas the kata/hyung-based grappling systems that Abernethy, Thompson, O'Neil and others are intended to set up potentially terminal strikes.
To me, the question of fusing MMA and TMA techniques could probably be better stated as the question of whether one should try to fuse grappling and striking systems, and there are a lot of very skilled martial artists out there who believe the answer is yes, absolutely. But these guys are also coming from fighting arts which emphasize strikes as the quickest and safest way to deal with an assailant in a streetfight, and their view of grappling, base on the traditional forms of those arts, is that grappling serves the end of setting up the lethal (or very damaging) strike. If you don't agree with that combat strategy, of course, then what they say isn't going to be convincing to you; but to me and a lot of other TMA types it makes a good deal of sense...
Well, that's the thing---guys like Abernethy, Geoff Thompson and others in that combat-based TMA group aren't interested in sports competition---they're interested in street effectiveness, in some cases because their professions require it. Thompson has a legendary career in the UK as a club bouncer; Lawrence Kane is a crowd-control `enforcer' for the PAC-10 football organization, and Loren Christensen was a special-tactics police officer and advisor/trainer for the military. The kata applications they advocate aren't intended to defeat an opponent on points or even force a submission, but rather to physically damage an opponent on the one strike/one kill principle. They're intended to set up things like knifehand strikes to the throat, full-force punches to the base of the skull, and other severely damaging moves. They argue, on the basis of detailed examination of classic kata and hyung sets, that this approach *was* what karate was meant to look like. Itosu and Matsumura were the bodyguards for the King of Okinawa, and by decree of their Satsuma overlords they had no other weapons than their bodies; their original interest in the fighting system they bequeathed to Funakoshi and others of his generation *had* to one that was both simple at its core and deadly in its application. And the same thing goes for TKD, which General Choi made the unarmed combat system of choice in the ROK army---and which was explicitly intended to be lethal in its application when Korean soldiers were fighting in close quarters with no access to a weapon.
>So much of the art has been lost and there is so far yet to go to >get >back to where it once was.
But what Abernethy and Co. are saying is the old, combat-dedicated art was *preserved*---in the form of its kata. It's just a matter of looking at the moves without taking literally the deceptive `block/punch' coding-up of the katas that Itosu and others used to disguise the orginal *use* of these moves, as traps and locks that were intended not as ends in themselves, but as setups for permanently damaging or fatal strikes to vital targets on the body. Sure, the grappling training that these guys advocate is going to be different from MMA---practicioners of the latter use grappling moves to force submissions, whereas the kata/hyung-based grappling systems that Abernethy, Thompson, O'Neil and others are intended to set up potentially terminal strikes.
To me, the question of fusing MMA and TMA techniques could probably be better stated as the question of whether one should try to fuse grappling and striking systems, and there are a lot of very skilled martial artists out there who believe the answer is yes, absolutely. But these guys are also coming from fighting arts which emphasize strikes as the quickest and safest way to deal with an assailant in a streetfight, and their view of grappling, base on the traditional forms of those arts, is that grappling serves the end of setting up the lethal (or very damaging) strike. If you don't agree with that combat strategy, of course, then what they say isn't going to be convincing to you; but to me and a lot of other TMA types it makes a good deal of sense...
- Thread Starter
- #35
Now that the storm has settled a bit, I'd really like to see it continue with the original topic in mind. There have been a few informative responses, and I'd hate to see it die off. Despite what a few of you percieve my intentions to be, I'd really like to know your thoughts on my original questions. Please, don't be shy.
You know I had this same conversation with some of the fellas last night. The thing is, I watched the UFC II in Charlotte, NC right outside the cage. I was competing in wrestling and Judo for the U.S. Marine Corps. I won 53 medals split between both in International competition.
One of my friends was a BJJ guy, he has earned his blue belt. From what I understand you can teach BJJ at Blue so I find him to be credible with his knowledge.
He said the MMA stuff was a sport, using it for fighting or self defense is no different than using high school wrestling,(not free style or greco) in a surrounding environment.
The best in MMA are wrestlers, why? Because the rules dictate as such. Remember if there are rules then it is not a fight.
Hapkido does not have competition, people would get seriously injured and maimed. Yeah, I know Tae Kwon Do and Judo are olympic sports yada yada yada. However, it seems that schools teach predominace to the SD or olympic style.
I know of schools such as Moo Do Kwan and Moo Sul kwan that teach predominately the SD side. However, if you are talented in the sparring/randori arena then you can be trained very effectively to win in competition.
GM Bol Young Shin, 10th Dan Judo has had many of his student compete in National and International competition, they did quite well for themselves. I know Ralph Hendrickson that teaches TKD at our Cape Girardeau, MO school has taken a group to Jr. Nationals and Nationals and have come back with great success.
However, and this is a big one. MMA takes what is seemingly the "best" of whatever chosen art to make a "Super art" if you will. This art being trained in and practiced is to win in the ring. Sorry, say what you want but I would rather keep someone at a distance when fighting on concrete.
If I get in close, then I know I have more than a few punches, a couple of takedowns. 2 major arm bars or a triangle.
MMA and UFC are sports......Built and will stay that way. If it is your gig then cool, as long as you practice and are diligent then I applaude you.
MMA and TMA are two totally different things and a happy medium they can share is the harmony of knowing they are setup up differently to accomplish two different things.
Just my .02 cents.
You can't convince me either that anyone is better at BJJ than the Gracie's. They eat, live, sleep and breath the stuff. Why did Hughes beat him? Wrestling and the UFC ruleset is much different now than when the Gracie's started it. Yes and BJJ or GJJ is a TMA not an MMA.
Sorry, the truth will always be true 100% of the time.
One of my friends was a BJJ guy, he has earned his blue belt. From what I understand you can teach BJJ at Blue so I find him to be credible with his knowledge.
He said the MMA stuff was a sport, using it for fighting or self defense is no different than using high school wrestling,(not free style or greco) in a surrounding environment.
The best in MMA are wrestlers, why? Because the rules dictate as such. Remember if there are rules then it is not a fight.
Hapkido does not have competition, people would get seriously injured and maimed. Yeah, I know Tae Kwon Do and Judo are olympic sports yada yada yada. However, it seems that schools teach predominace to the SD or olympic style.
I know of schools such as Moo Do Kwan and Moo Sul kwan that teach predominately the SD side. However, if you are talented in the sparring/randori arena then you can be trained very effectively to win in competition.
GM Bol Young Shin, 10th Dan Judo has had many of his student compete in National and International competition, they did quite well for themselves. I know Ralph Hendrickson that teaches TKD at our Cape Girardeau, MO school has taken a group to Jr. Nationals and Nationals and have come back with great success.
However, and this is a big one. MMA takes what is seemingly the "best" of whatever chosen art to make a "Super art" if you will. This art being trained in and practiced is to win in the ring. Sorry, say what you want but I would rather keep someone at a distance when fighting on concrete.
If I get in close, then I know I have more than a few punches, a couple of takedowns. 2 major arm bars or a triangle.
MMA and UFC are sports......Built and will stay that way. If it is your gig then cool, as long as you practice and are diligent then I applaude you.
MMA and TMA are two totally different things and a happy medium they can share is the harmony of knowing they are setup up differently to accomplish two different things.
Just my .02 cents.
You can't convince me either that anyone is better at BJJ than the Gracie's. They eat, live, sleep and breath the stuff. Why did Hughes beat him? Wrestling and the UFC ruleset is much different now than when the Gracie's started it. Yes and BJJ or GJJ is a TMA not an MMA.
Sorry, the truth will always be true 100% of the time.
Mod Note
Thread closed for Admin. review
Mike Slosek
MT Supermod
Thread closed for Admin. review
Mike Slosek
MT Supermod
Assist. Admin. Note:
There are countless debates on TMA vs. MMA and the argument has been split from this thread and moved to The Great Debate forum. If you wish to argue efficacy and viability and continue contrasting the two, then go here.
This thread will be re-opened and will return to its original topic or will be shut down again.
G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assist. Administrator
There are countless debates on TMA vs. MMA and the argument has been split from this thread and moved to The Great Debate forum. If you wish to argue efficacy and viability and continue contrasting the two, then go here.
This thread will be re-opened and will return to its original topic or will be shut down again.
G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assist. Administrator
Ok. Sounds good.
- Status
Similar threads
