Happy medium between TMA and MMA for self defense?
- Thread starter cfr
- Start date
- Status
Amen!
So, can we talk?
Ever since the thread was put on hold, I've been wondering about how a topic like this should be addressed. This is what I came up with. The original question was about whether it would be possible to merge TMA and MMA techniques in some optimal way---is that a fair characterization? If it is, then the next obvious thing to ask is, what would that merger consist of? And here's where I think the original problem arose. I don't think you can merge overarching strategies. Aikido, BJJ and TKD have very different takes on just what the overall approach of the defender in a fight should be, and the differences are a big part of what makes those MAs what they are. But there's no reason why you can't appropriate tactics from one of them to use under the strategic plan another. I think the really forward-thinking people in combat-oriented TMA, people like Geoff Thompson, Peter Consterdine and Iain Abernethy, have realized that, as IA puts it, the problem with the fighters who founded and utilized traditional martial arts is not that they were complete idiots, but that there is something wrong in the way the arts they formalized have been taught until very recently.
The trick is to find as many methods as possible that support the strategy of your TMA. Abernethy's group has made a series of DVDs on special topics like hand strikes with contributions and demonstrations from a variety of traditional karate styles, as well as groundfighting systems and military service combat systems. The general idea behind this work is that the earlier forms of the TMAs---not just Asian MAs but e.g. western boxing---had techniques and fighting methods available for every combat range. What's happened is that the TMAs have evolved into hyperspecialized arts, ignoring techniques which don't fall into a certain `optimal' combat distance. There are two ways to reverse this trend:
(i) explore the kata/hyungs/whatever of a given MA to recover the techiques that they contain, usually in disguise, for the full set of fighting ranges;
(ii) study the techniques of other specialized MAs and see what you can adapt.
On the whole, my own preference is to follow guys like Thompson, Abernethy and O'Neil and go with (i). But there's nothing wrong with (ii) either. The only way I think you can go wrong is in trying to fuse strategies. I don't think you can simultaneously pursue approach which tell you to go the ground as soon as you can and to go one strike/one kill till the bitter end. But synthesizing tactics (e.g., arm locks and traps to set up one-kill strikes in karate or TKD, say)---absolutely!
I guess, to recap and expand on exactly what my position is, TMA and MMA rely on fundamentally different ideas as proof of what works and as the means to alter techniques, strategies or tactics. I think alot of modern eclectic TMAs fall into a sort of middle ground, but this just ends up making them a target of criticism to both extremes.
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.
There is much middle ground between these two extremes, and some will draw readily from the arguements of the other side when it suits their needs ("oh, so Koga Ryu isn't real? But our grandmaster can still fight!" or "so what if my teacher can't beat people up? he learned from the great [enter name here]!")
Despite this middle ground, I feel that the difference is fundamentally irresolvable, and it becomes necessary to choose who to trust and what will constitute proof.
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.
There is much middle ground between these two extremes, and some will draw readily from the arguements of the other side when it suits their needs ("oh, so Koga Ryu isn't real? But our grandmaster can still fight!" or "so what if my teacher can't beat people up? he learned from the great [enter name here]!")
Despite this middle ground, I feel that the difference is fundamentally irresolvable, and it becomes necessary to choose who to trust and what will constitute proof.
tradrockrat
2nd Black Belt
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.
Good post Tradrockrat. When I'm allowed to give rep again, I'll give you some points.
I don't believe so. Even the Ashida Kim devotees are still alive, hence what they are doing must be working for them. I don't think that makes their system worthwhile and certainly not the best one. At the end of the day, I think you have to choose between practicing techniques rumored to cause massive damage and practicing sports techniques that clearly don't kill in one blow or anything of the sort but work well and consistantly in competition.
I was reading a book interviewing practitioners of internal chinese martial arts. One of the instructors spent much of his interview saying that modern arts lacked powerful blows, saying that kickboxers were ineffective because they went for long fights. He countered with an example of someone in his style who supposedly killed a man with a single blow to the chest. At some point, a prospective student has to choose whether to believe him or not.
Fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their opinion I guess.
I don't believe so. Even the Ashida Kim devotees are still alive, hence what they are doing must be working for them. I don't think that makes their system worthwhile and certainly not the best one. At the end of the day, I think you have to choose between practicing techniques rumored to cause massive damage and practicing sports techniques that clearly don't kill in one blow or anything of the sort but work well and consistantly in competition.
I was reading a book interviewing practitioners of internal chinese martial arts. One of the instructors spent much of his interview saying that modern arts lacked powerful blows, saying that kickboxers were ineffective because they went for long fights. He countered with an example of someone in his style who supposedly killed a man with a single blow to the chest. At some point, a prospective student has to choose whether to believe him or not.
Fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their opinion I guess.
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?
Exactly. Matsumura is a founder of several forms of Okinawan karate as we know it today - he created several kata that were later made part of other styles. I had a post (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=563583#post563583) where I said what I thought of the founders of arts.
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. (Of course, MMA people already have a pretty good idea of what works well, so the exploration is within an existing body of knowledge for most people.) 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.
Hey Rook---OK, gotcha---I see what you're getting at. And thanks for the reference to your post on TMA founders.
Hey Rook---OK, gotcha---I see what you're getting at. And thanks for the reference to your post on TMA founders.
I think that there are some really good points being made. Since this thread is specifically pertaining to self defense, and not which group is better, some very important things to consider when choosing a self defense art are:
1. How does the general public view the art I'm interested in?
2. How do legislators and judges view the art I'm interested in?
3. How does the art I'm interested in generally represent itself in the world?
4. Would I end up in more trouble in a self defense situation because I've chosen this art?
5. Since martial artists are portrayed differently than untrained people in the courtroom, would the martial art I'm interested in be viewed by a jury as more of a Swiss Army knife or as a wicked looking knife designed for murder, robbery, and terrorising people?
6. Is the art I'm interested in interested more in self defense, or in fighting?
Those are just some of the questions people who are interested in a self defense art might consider. If you're interested in protecting yourself and your loved ones, the last thing you want to do is to harm yourself, or them, because you lose in the courtroom. The courtroom is a big part of self defense. If you lose there, your problems have only just begun.
Just a little something to think about.
Fu Bag
1. How does the general public view the art I'm interested in?
2. How do legislators and judges view the art I'm interested in?
3. How does the art I'm interested in generally represent itself in the world?
4. Would I end up in more trouble in a self defense situation because I've chosen this art?
5. Since martial artists are portrayed differently than untrained people in the courtroom, would the martial art I'm interested in be viewed by a jury as more of a Swiss Army knife or as a wicked looking knife designed for murder, robbery, and terrorising people?
6. Is the art I'm interested in interested more in self defense, or in fighting?
Those are just some of the questions people who are interested in a self defense art might consider. If you're interested in protecting yourself and your loved ones, the last thing you want to do is to harm yourself, or them, because you lose in the courtroom. The courtroom is a big part of self defense. If you lose there, your problems have only just begun.
Just a little something to think about.
Fu Bag
zDom
Senior Master
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,081
- Reaction score
- 111
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?
Yeah, but tested to see if this strategy works in what form? I don't mean that the art has a different strategy or even that different people in an art specialize in different things. MMA relies on the individual pressure testing everything they do, and coming out with a record supporting the efficacy of their chosen strategy and technique set. Heck, Ashida Kim has his own fighting strategy, and all his own students have their own variations (mostly because they don't know what they heck they're doing).
Hmm.
There are lots of different ways to do a given technique, and some ways are distictly better than others.
Even assuming the techniques are exactly the same (which I really don't think that they are) there is still an issue of proven quality. You can learn the same boxing punches and the same footwork out of a book or from famous boxing gyms. Yet boxers travel from across the globe to those gyms, and their boxers consistantly outperform other boxers. Of course, every book seller is going to say that you can learn the same techniques from them. They are just much, much less capable at them, and their application is much less refined.
See above.
To the MMA proponent, the next question is "what is the record of people applying these techniques?" and "what is your sucess rate applying them?" Simply feeling they are effective does not make them so. To the TMA proponent, the question will be what the lineage and such is of the instructor.
1. Can you sucessfully apply those same techniques against fighters from those methods? Have you or people from your group tried? How did it turn out?
2. More stuff later..
This is critical. 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. The second is by a passing personal impression. The third is by lineage. You'll have to decide how to weight them in your choice, and that will very much decide what types of people you train with.
If there is middle ground, my guess is that it'd be somewhere in the above statements. The last part is especially good.
Respects,
Fu Bag
- Thread Starter
- #54
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?
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?
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
zDom
Senior Master
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,081
- Reaction score
- 111
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"?
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"?
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"?
Video? (kidding)
******running like hell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You know, there are people who are convinced that the whole of self-defense training is a lost cause. Mostly likely, by the fact that we train in martial arts and discuss self defense, we don't really agree with that.
No one said that unarmed techniques are the only part of self defense. However, the efficacy of unarmed techniques and firearms techniques can readily be assessed seperately from each other. No one seems to doubt the usefullness of firearms or other modern weapons. I, and other martial artists, feel that self defense does not begin and end with carrying a firearm. Nor do we feel that a weapon eliminates the use for effective unarmed fighting skills. We frequently point out the need for self defense in place where it is illegal to possess a firearm, or even carry a knife (see Detroit city ordinance). We also note the need to aquire time or distance to draw a weapon and accurately fire. We may also point out that even gun nuts may not always have their weapons with them, and that some situations do not call for lethal force, but still justify physical violence.
Again, it is generally agreed that if it is possible to avoid a street fight, one should do so. Fighting skills begin where that fails. Simply saying that you shouldn't be in fights, and therefor don't need fighting skills seems nothing short of third-rate evasion.
I think you consistantly underestimate the complexity and depth of how the justice system works.
This is a rather bizarre scenario.
I see nowhere in this, or most any other thread that identified either TMA or MMA with vigilantism or the like. I see no indication that MMAists are any more or less likely to get into street fights than any other segment of the population.
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
I'm not sure what type of confusion you are clearing up.
I'm trying to keep this in the persective of whether or not their can be a happy medium as opposed to simply which is better. If it doesn't stay there, then I suppose the moderators can move this to our thread in the Great Debate forum.
I'm not sure what you're looking for.
Not a chance. There is hardly any technique or principle so crazy or ineffective that someone somewhere hasn't pulled it off at one point or another in self defense. Even those that are physically impossible (techniques involving levitation, flying, chi-blasts, and burning people with body heat) have at least a few people who claim to have done it. Simply because you managed to make something work once or ten times or a thousand times doesn't make it the optimal way to do something. Facing off with someone with similar physical attributes with a better way of doing something who has trained at a similar level of dedication, this would swiftly become apparent. Of course, by refusing to do so, less effective methods can continue to appear effective.
Before martial arts: several trips to the hospital following assaults.
After TMA training: unscathed following assaults.
Hows that for a "record"?
Hmm. Easily matched by many other people. What makes your approach better than or equal to theirs?
- Status
Similar threads
