Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks for re-opening.
To a classically presevered martial art, like the Japanese koryu or certain Chinese arts, change is inappropriate unless very subtle and coming from the grandmaster/soke. This is necessary to avoid diluting the wisdom of the founder. The reason given for the efficacy of techniques is the actions or abilities of the founder and the line of sucession to the present student. Legitimacy is by lineage.
To a mixed martial artist, change is as appropriate as it is sucessful in competition. One could concievably fight in almost any manner, and how good or bad your change is would become apparent by your sucess or failure - recorded on video and noted on Sherdog.com. Legitimacy is by personal fighting record.
... I feel that the difference is fundamentally irresolvable, and it becomes necessary to choose who to trust and what will constitute proof.
But when it comes to Self Defense specifically, can you not believe that Ligitimacy by staying alive is what counts over both sport wins and lineage? Because if so, this is in fact that VERY happy medium between the two systems people may be looking for.
I can only speak for myself, but when I found myself involved in what I believed was a fight for my life, very little (a few kicks only) of what I used to become a national champion fighter (ABA freesparing) was used in the altercation. I used what I had been taught in self defense class, which were practical applications of techniques found in my forms. I think SD is the happy medium between sport and traditional MA's, and I believe it can be the happy meduim between MMA and TMA.
To a classically presevered martial art, like the Japanese koryu or certain Chinese arts, change is inappropriate unless very subtle and coming from the grandmaster/soke. This is necessary to avoid diluting the wisdom of the founder. The reason given for the efficacy of techniques is the actions or abilities of the founder and the line of sucession to the present student. Legitimacy is by lineage.
To a mixed martial artist, change is as appropriate as it is sucessful in competition.
A lot of what you say is true. But didn't the guys we regard as the founders of the traditional disciplines do somethingn similar to what you're saying about MMAists? E.g., Matsumura created the Chinto kata, a new form, on the basis of his one combat experience with the stranded Chinese sailor Chinto, who fought him to a draw---an very rare outcome for anyone fighting Matsumura. Would this not be an example of a change (at least, the addition of a new kata) on the basis of success in `competition'? Since katas represented whole fighting styles to those guys, what Matsumura was doing was in effect importing new fighting system into Okinawan karate on the basis of this one encounter with a formidable opponent. That would qualify as a kind of opportunistic change of the sort you're attributing solely to MMA types, no?
The difference between Bruce Lee's JKD or MMA and various TMAs that also draw from multiple older arts is that whereas in TMAs the founder already got all the good stuff from the other arts; he already took what was useful, rejected what was useless, and added what was uniquely his own - there is no need for anyone else to fiddle with his perfect system, and suggestions to the contrary are considered heresy against the now-deified founder.
The difference between Bruce Lee's JKD or MMA and various TMAs that also draw from multiple older arts is that whereas in TMAs the founder already got all the good stuff from the other arts; he already took what was useful, rejected what was useless, and added what was uniquely his own - there is no need for anyone else to fiddle with his perfect system, and suggestions to the contrary are considered heresy against the now-deified founder.
In JKD or MMA, the expectation is that the student will himself or herself come to understand what is useful and useless to them, and then set up their own fighting strategy based on it.
This is why the idea of Hapkido or Hung Fat or Judo or kajuboko aren't the same as MMA or JKD, even though they draw on two or more arts and openly combine the "best" elements of each.
This is exactly the same expectation that we have at the hapkido dojang where I train.
Fighting strategy in our case not only changes based on what we personally find useful or useless, but also what we think is useful or useless for a particular situation.
A strategy with a drunk, belligerent friend isn't the same as a strategy for dealing with someone who is attacking my grandma.
A strategy I may use while playing Olympic Taekwondo is definately not the same strategy I use when attacked by multiple attackers.
This is what I don't understand about you, Rook. You make these generalizations about hapkido and other TMA based on what?
If lineage doesn't matter (which I agree with, to some extent) then what does it matter if you learn a technique from a BJJ mat, a Judo dojo, a MMA gym or a hapkido dojang?
If the instruction is solid and the training intense, a technique is a technique. An arm bar is an arm bar, a rear naked choke is a rear naked choke, and a punch is a punch.
I think the real issue in merging MMA and TMA is: what is available in your immediate area?
When I started in TKD, I soon came to the conclusion that the TKD I was studying was very effective for self defense in a stand up situation -- for ME and others who trained with the same intensity and devotion to "Will this work?"
Other students at the very same school, from the very same instructor, I really worried about should they ever have to defend themselves.
But I saw a gap: I was never very good at "wrestling" as I never had much training in it. If, I thought to myself, somebody gets ahold of me and/or pulls me to the ground, then what?
My best option here at that time was hapkido. It filled that gap for me perfectly. We have a solid curriculum and train hard. I have seen the very same techniques I have studied demonstrated in the UFC ring, even if those fighters learned them from a different lineage:
usually a MMA program via BJJ which came from Judo which came from Japanese Ju Jutsu
as opposed to
coming from hapkido, which came from Judo and Japanese Ju-Jutsu.
But again: it was the very same rear naked choke, the same arm bars, the same scoop throws.
So in regards to merging MMA and TMA for self defense, I think a better question that each individual needs to ask themself is:
What is lacking in my training? Where is my weak spot? The hole in my "armor"? The missing tool?
Once identified, the next question is: where can I best train that here and now?
Style, lineage, traditional or non-traditional, mixed or pure, MMA or TMA, brand loyalty, whatever you call it, these are all just label, all secondary to: will this particular coach/instructor/sabumnim/sensei teach and train me to have the effective self defense techniques I need?
So in regards to merging MMA and TMA for self defense, I think a better question that each individual needs to ask themself is:
What is lacking in my training? Where is my weak spot? The hole in my "armor"? The missing tool?
Once identified, the next question is: where can I best train that here and now?
Style, lineage, traditional or non-traditional, mixed or pure, MMA or TMA, brand loyalty, whatever you call it, these are all just label, all secondary to: will this particular coach/instructor/sabumnim/sensei teach and train me to have the effective self defense techniques I need?
Awesome discussion. What I meant by "merge" is just what a few of you have been talking about. To take some from TMA, and some from MMA, and make it work for you. Keep in mind that these statements are VERY generalized.
1; I can practice MMA against a live resisting opponent. IMO this is great for conditioning, timing, seeing what works from someone not leaving their arm in the air, not moving not resisting.
2; Number 1 has a huge hole. I can never practice groin kicks, eye gouges, neck strikes, etc. the way I would in a TMA. TMA is optimal for this.
3; Number 2 has a huge hole. How would I ever be able to learn the benefits mentioned in number 1 if most of what I do is in number 2?
So my thinking is, instead of doing number 1 or number 2, why not spend some time doing both?
Now I know some TMA folks will say "We do learn lessons from number 1 when we spar, do freestyle stuff, etc".
I also know that MMA folks will say "How hard could it be to learn stuff from number 2 if I have the attributes from number 1"?
Keep in mind, THESE STATEMENTS ARE VERY GENERALIZED.
I guess my point here is instead of the almighty TMA OR MMA, why not do a bit of both? Why does it need to be one way or the other with soooooo many people?
Awesome discussion. What I meant by "merge" is just what a few of you have been talking about. To take some from TMA, and some from MMA, and make it work for you. Keep in mind that these statements are VERY generalized.
1; I can practice MMA against a live resisting opponent. IMO this is great for conditioning, timing, seeing what works from someone not leaving their arm in the air, not moving not resisting.
2; Number 1 has a huge hole. I can never practice groin kicks, eye gouges, neck strikes, etc. the way I would in a TMA. TMA is optimal for this.
3; Number 2 has a huge hole. How would I ever be able to learn the benefits mentioned in number 1 if most of what I do is in number 2?
So my thinking is, instead of doing number 1 or number 2, why not spend some time doing both?
Now I know some TMA folks will say "We do learn lessons from number 1 when we spar, do freestyle stuff, etc".
I also know that MMA folks will say "How hard could it be to learn stuff from number 2 if I have the attributes from number 1"?
Keep in mind, THESE STATEMENTS ARE VERY GENERALIZED.
I guess my point here is instead of the almighty TMA OR MMA, why not do a bit of both? Why does it need to be one way or the other with soooooo many people?
One of the pivotal difference is how you decide who can fill the gap. Three methods emerge. THe first is by that person and his student's sucess in competition.
Competition gives an INDICATION of what might be effective in self defense. Period.
Here is another pressure test for you: personal experience in self defense.
Before martial arts: several trips to the hospital following assaults.
After TMA training: unscathed following assaults.
Hows that for a "record"?
You know what the irony is? This is basically a publicity war between the two sides. The only purpose it serves is to show the general public that no one in the MA community, on either side, is responsible, or mature, enough to receive MA training for harming anyone for any reason. That includes using any MA to defend yourself or your loved ones.
The mistaken belief that unarmed techniques are the best solution to modern criminals is a potentially deadly mistake on either side of the fence.
All of the non-physical stuff is needed when you need to defend your family on an everyday basis. Why only train for the least desirable outcome?
By training for the least desirable outcome, people can make the mistake of putting themselves in that outcome with no way of reversing it. By not training for that outcome, people have nothing to fall back on if they fail at using the non-physical stuff. Imagine that you're a Police Officer. Now, imagine that you roll up on a situation where you see one person dominating another with severe predjudice. Who are you going to think is defending themselves?
What are witnesses going to say? How is the poor, pitiful, misunderstood, neglected, abused person, that society created, going to be able to use both of those opinions to get a successful conviction and/or lawsuit against you? Once you're out of the way, who is going to protect your loved ones?
Let's say you end up in jail because the criminal was more versed in using the system than you are. Now, let's say that you use your deadly skills in prison and harm some criminals. Those criminals may have friends on the outside. What do you think is going to happen to your family then?
My opinion, and experience, is that you absolutey want to avoid any type of physical altercation by whatever means you can. The police do not want, or need, vigilante martial artists out there. You can either choose to be the type of martial artist who helps them, or you can choose to be the type that ends up in prison and is seen as being no better than anyone else there.
I would highly recommend being on the side of law enforcement rather than working against them. That's going to save your life, and the lives of your loved ones, a lot more than trying to act the part of an ultimate fighter will. If this thread truly is about self defense, and not about bashing the TMA crowd, maybe some of the Police Officers on the boards would be willing to offer their advice.
That might help to clear up some of the confusion.
Fu Bag
Rook, I am not going to get baited into another off-topic argument with you regarding your belief that MMA has the only valid training methods and techniques.
It simply isn't true. Saying so 50 different ways in every thread doesn't make it so. We all heard you the first 50 times. Please drop it. I'm still holding on to the hope that you have something to contribute other than cheerleading for the MMA camps.
This is a discussion on SELF DEFENSE.
Competition gives an INDICATION of what might be effective in self defense. Period.
Here is another pressure test for you: personal experience in self defense.
Before martial arts: several trips to the hospital following assaults.
After TMA training: unscathed following assaults.
Hows that for a "record"?