MMA and similar arts are not true Martial Arts?

[ShotoNoob]

I disagree completely. It has nothing to do with artistic expression. Martial art is an English term, used as a translation for various Asian terms. The Asian terms do not indicate the notion of artistic expression. The English term "martial arts" would be better termed martial methods or systems. Leave
The term "art" out of it completely.

|
In your English class I get an "F." At my current school I started with a "F" according to the assistant head instructor. 6 months later I was awarded a scholarship to train free.

 

[geezer]

I disagree completely. It has nothing to do with artistic expression. Martial art is an English term, used as a translation for various Asian terms. The Asian terms do not indicate the notion of artistic expression. The English term "martial arts" would be better termed martial methods or systems. Leave
The term "art" out of it completely.

"Art" in English can also refer to a highly refined skill, as in the "artistry of a master craftsman". In this sense it closely parallels some of the Asian terms for martial art.

I for example practice Ving Tsun kuen fat (quan fa) a Southern Chinese branch of mo sut (wushu) more commonly referred to by the modern Cantonese term gung fu --which most people know literally translates as "hard work" and refers to the mastery that results from that hard work.

When a master potter quickly and effortlessly manipulates the clay into an elegant vase, he reveals his kung fu. His art. Even if he is just making pickle jars. And it is individual. If two master potters each make ten identical jars --same height, width, form, and weight of clay-- they can look at them and identify their own pots. There will be subtle differences, hidden to the casual viewer but as obvious to the potter as a signature. So even thought he throws according to cannon, to height, width, and weight, his kung fu, his art, his individuality will still be evident to the trained eye. It's the mark of the maker that separates art, which is unique to the individual, from science which by definition must be replicable.

In this sense all the greatest martial masters from Miyamoto Musashi to Muhammed Ali are artists, not technicians my book!

 

[Zero]

|
I'm so brilliant, I'll quote myself. Why I'm tongue-in-cheek is that I got beat up here for saying I don't need a corner man. Here's a perfect example of what I'm driving at. It's an MMA scenario that was a UFC YT vid. Basically a fight recap. A physically smaller opponent is getting beat up pretty bad by a larger, more aggressive opponent. Both are of course the same broad weight class.
|
Buzzer sounds to end the round. Smaller opponent heads back to corner, at a loss. Corner man / Coach supportive-ly counsels smaller opponent, "Hey, you're getting killed in there! You've got to be more aggressive. You've got to focus. Hit him and hit hard. Now go in there and knock him out... you can do it! Go for the KO!
|
Smaller opponent goes back in. Bigger opponent dominates and shortly smaller opponent gets KO'd.
|
The KIME has to be in you. The expression of KIME can only come from you. KIME can't come from a corner man. Either you have sufficient KIME to defeat the physically overwhelming opponent or you don't. The Japanese karate-do base gives you KIME. the Okinawan karate-jutsu gives you KIME. Traditional TKD gives you KIME.
|
MMA gives you reflexes. KIME beats reflexes once KIME is sufficiently developed. Is it a guarantee, NO. Nothing is guaranteed. You the karateka must develop the KIME inside to make it happen. It's up to you.

Hey, look you certainly didn't get "beat up" on for your corner-man related statement. Sure, I think I was even the first to call you on that. But it is simply me stating my opinion, from my experience, on what you are stating as how you see things. Most folks on this site are pretty open minded and will initially investigate something further if what they hear doesn't stack up with what they have experienced. I just happen to disagree with you as to the value of a corner man in the sporting/ring environment or the "corner-man" (mentor) in the real world, non-ring environment. But that's fine, it can be good to disagree and test each other's position - sometimes a great thing happens in debate and you actually realise that what you had whole-heartedly understood to be correct (or had bought into as your teacher's gospel teachings), is actually in correct, or that someone else's approach is better.

That in my view is only a good thing - if you are open-minded enough to accept that.

 

[Zero]

|
I'm so brilliant, I'll quote myself. Why I'm tongue-in-cheek is that I got beat up here for saying I don't need a corner man. Here's a perfect example of what I'm driving at. It's an MMA scenario that was a UFC YT vid. Basically a fight recap. A physically smaller opponent is getting beat up pretty bad by a larger, more aggressive opponent. Both are of course the same broad weight class.
|
Buzzer sounds to end the round. Smaller opponent heads back to corner, at a loss. Corner man / Coach supportive-ly counsels smaller opponent, "Hey, you're getting killed in there! You've got to be more aggressive. You've got to focus. Hit him and hit hard. Now go in there and knock him out... you can do it! Go for the KO!
|
Smaller opponent goes back in. Bigger opponent dominates and shortly smaller opponent gets KO'd.

Ok, here for the record, the above is not an example of a great corner-man at all and not what I have personally experienced - but I have seen plenty of poor ring advice given out when watching fights so I will grant you that.
A good corner-man in the above situation would be saying along the lines of, "Stay out of the corners, move off-line, hit-and-move, hit-and-move, make hi m chase you, tire him out, etc, etc"
They are not often going to say, "you are getting pummelled by a giant, so go head-to-head". : )

 

[Zero]

|
That's a very good way to put some of the failings of how certain karate practitioners practice karate. You and many others here are looking at effect rather than cause. Since I don't like Shotokan karate as a style, I do like Shotokan karate for illustrating traditional karate principles. So short answer the way I would point you is to look at Gichin Funakosi and his disciples define the "Shotokan" karate.
|
BTW: There other posters holding fast to TMA principles that are too looking at cause rather than effect as I am.

Thanks for all your answers.

I agree, that effect is everything, as long as the "cause" is not over time leading to a bigger problem. For example, you can throw a high kick powerfully in several ways to KO an opponent with, but some ways of throwing a high kick are biomechanically more optimal than others and less likely to lead to injury of self. I have seen some pretty bad, wild throwing of techniques that over time can lead to wear or tear or simply leave you more open to counter-attack.

Thus while "effect" in a fight is key, the "cause" you choose to result in that effect, can be just as important. Do you follow / agree?

|
Ah, your opening sentence is putting words in my mouth. I called a poster on that and got called myself. So I'm a bit gun shy. I am saying that physical training that produces athletic abilities including those named/ is not how Gichin Funakoshi defines traditional karate.

No, I was not putting words in your mouth at all. It was absolutely phrased as a question. I asked you "is this what you are saying" to determine what it is you meant. I did not say "this is what you are saying". Different and not the same. But your above explanation is very helpful and now I think I have a clearer understanding of what you meant.

Sorry, again, I think you are being a bit disingenuous here. In fact, I had this very discussion with the Master I am working with and he came to agree that my perspective on such attributes was the correctly more sophisticate-ly accurate. He did not frame the issue in the negative as you did.... that's why I am working with him and perhaps not some of the other seniors in my school.

So from this statement and your one directly above this, do I take it that you see it as follows:
1. physical drills or specific athletic training (but not the practice of actual karate), that results in better timing, cadence, distance understanding etc, while useful, is not the "traditional approach"?

2. mental training, consideration and focus which results in better timing, fight strategy and ability is the traditional way?

3. the physical training and application of karate technique, be it kata or actual individual techniques repeated that results in these attributes...not sure, are you saying this is also the traditional approach or not? Is it only the mental application and focus?

I appreciate the depth of the talent here, including the RBD members. Yet the discussion continues to veer off course towards you having me say that the physical somehow not important.... It's not that what you say is not relevant, it's that it's not competent. Where you say "reflexes," I say "KIME." KIME is a qualitative term of traditional karate that Gichin Funakoshi (as well as Okinawan Masters hold the same or similar concept(s), as well as TKD, as well as other styles of Japanese karate, as well as the Japanese Jujitsu's, etc.
|
It's not that the Okinawan Karate's emphasize "JUTSU," ie. rough tough fighters; and the Japanese karate's emphasize "DO," where the latter ultimately some degenerate into "tippy tappy" karate flower children. It's what drives "DO" that powers "JUTSU." the mind.... That's the huge divide over sport-based fighting.

From my years of judo and then about 15 years in Okinawan goju ryu, I have a pretty good grasp on kime - at least to the extent my senseis have imparted on me and from my own research and thoughts on the matter. Similar concepts also abound in Chinese martial arts and martial philosophy which I have studied.
I need to think more however, if what you are saying is that the difference between what you see in clicker/sport karate and traditional karate is a result of the mental approach to the application of the style?

 

[drop bear]

And odds are everything he teaches comes from kickboxing and BJJ...many times it's not even changed fromain the original style the tech is from.

I have nothing against MMA, but I consider it a ruleset, not a Martial Art. You can cross train in a striking art and grappling art at schools completely unrelated to MMA, train with proper intensity and contact, learn the rules, and step into the cage and perform competitively.

The only thing you won't get that way is working the cage, which is fairly intuitive.

for nearly every other martial art, you can't do that.

A karate will almost never out box a boxer because of the boxers refinement of punching techniques

A boxer or Muay Thai guy, can't just transition into sport TKD, the rules and meta game are insanely different. While possiblr, it requires a lot of tweaking.

I can't consider something it's own MA when you can get nearly everything from it, with the exact same technique, from cross training 2 martial arts.

All martial arts took from something else but they changed things a good bit based on their opinion and methods. MMA doesn't do that, they use the exact same technique from whatever root styles their gym uses

In the cage, If I throw a distinct TKD punching/kicking combo, I'm doing TKD at that moment. If I use a MT clinch to throw MT knees while working for a takedown, at that moment I'm doing MT. If I submit my opponent with an omoplata, at that moment I'm doing BJJ.

That's the beauty of MMA. But all these things are moves from other martial arts, not from MMA. They're simply used in MMA competitions

You have mma the competition and mma the art. Two different things.

I could potentially compete in an art I have never trained. And use mma to the limits of their rule set.

 

[ShotoNoob]

Thanks for all your answers.

I agree, that effect is everything, as long as the "cause" is not over time leading to a bigger problem. For example, you can throw a high kick powerfully in several ways to KO an opponent with, but some ways of throwing a high kick are biomechanically more optimal than others and less likely to lead to injury of self. I have seen some pretty bad, wild throwing of techniques that over time can lead to wear or tear or simply leave you more open to counter-attack.

Thus while "effect" in a fight is key, the "cause" you choose to result in that effect, can be just as important. Do you follow / agree?

Yes in general as well as with you example regarding physical form that is done in a correct, not-harmful way. In terms of counterattack, there's where proper tactics come into play as well. There a design based on principles. The choice of actual application is up to the individual practitioner. But again, this exactly where your kind of council comes in....

Thanks for all your answers.No, I was not putting words in your mouth at all. It was absolutely phrased as a question. I asked you "is this what you are saying" to determine what it is you meant. I did not say "this is what you are saying". Different and not the same. But your above explanation is very helpful and now I think I have a clearer understanding of what you meant.

|
And there should be more in class discussion on these topics we are going over through the forum.

Thanks for all your answers.So from this statement and your one directly above this, do I take it that you see it as follows:
1. physical drills or specific athletic training (but not the practice of actual karate), that results in better timing, cadence, distance understanding etc, while useful, is not the "traditional approach"?

|
YES. In traditional karate, IMO, it starts out physical, conditioning, learning basic postures, techniques, the curriculum. Then more & more & more it phases into a mental discipline, where the thinking mind is dominant, and the physical an expression of the mental intent. The Shotokan curriculum goes into detail much more on this than does my curriculum. I'm not a fan of Shotokan as a style, but Funakoshi made plain certain critical precepts about traditional karate being mental.... Requires a bit of serious study though.
|
Incidentally the physical qualities you spelled out can and are learned through merely the physical activity in Shotokan. The bio-mechanic theory is difference in some regards than say boxing or MT or say BJJ, wrestling. But I want to stress that training Shotokan as a physical activity alone can produce these benefits. Here is where much of the debate comes from boxers or BJJ artists saying that there method is more natural and more practical and faster to develop.
|
What the latter miss is the real message in all that rigorous Shotokan attention to bio-mechanical control is the mental control that grows out of that training. Including such traits as the "mental clarity" discussed @ the state of mind T. Often that gets lost in the heavy physicality & aggression inherent in the Shotokan style....

Thanks for all your answers.2. mental training, consideration and focus which results in better timing, fight strategy and ability is the traditional way?

3. the physical training and application of karate technique, be it kata or actual individual techniques repeated that results in these attributes...not sure, are you saying this is also the traditional approach or not? Is it only the mental application and focus?

|
This is what kata critiques miss. Kata is the consummate traditional karate exercise. It's kata that takes "mental clarity, " etc. to it's highest level. However in fact, the mental component is the underlying driver in all components of the traditional karate curriculum: Kihon, Kata, Kumite. Karate can be practiced as a physical art, the Master's intended it to be a mental discipline. That's where the real strength in Karate's effectiveness comes from.

From my years of judo and then about 15 years in Okinawan goju ryu, I have a pretty good grasp on kime - at least to the extent my senseis have imparted on me and from my own research and thoughts on the matter. Similar concepts also abound in Chinese martial arts and martial philosophy which I have studied.
I need to think more however, if what you are saying is that the difference between what you see in clicker/sport karate and traditional karate is a result of the mental approach to the application of the style?

|
Think of it as a spectrum. On the one end you have say boxing. These guys really can physically condition. They hone their craft with punching drills, the heavy bag, practice making their reactions and technique faster & faster. It's what I refer to as muscle memory like a basketball player who does layups without thinking hard. This group, as in MMA is also very reliant on actual sparring to develop the physical reaction times & ingrained responses.
|
In the middle you have sport karate, a mixture but largely the same as boxers yet hopefully better KIME.
|
On the other end you have traditional karate (a subset of TMA). Here you have true mind & body union, with the mind totally in control at all times. Your "mental clarity functions like a radar, directing and redirecting your conscious response (not subconscious / reflex reaction) to each and move in turn made by your opponent. The traditional karateka never outfights the opponent, he out-thinks the opponent. This is the central lesson of Gichin Funakoshi translated into the Japanese karate. Of course Gichin Funakoshi got the concept from the Okinawans. Who got it from the Chinese. That's my opinion....

Oh, and here sparring is much less important. Because the "mental clarity" skill and hence mind-body union come from within. It's an internal process. That's why I said I need no corner man. I am my "own corner man."

 

[Drose427]

You have mma the competition and mma the art. Two different things.

I could potentially compete in an art I have never trained. And use mma to the limits of their rule set.

I don't consider MMA an art.

Again, your MMA most likely comes from whatever outside competition you try to compete it. It isn't anything specific to MMA, it's all picture perfect techs from other styles and systems.

But even this this isn't really true. A Muay Thai guy wouldn't perform well at all in sport tkd, the technique is vastly different, combos, how they fight in general, etc. He'd have to learn some TKD. A boxer won't win a Naga Championship Without learning BJJ.

Even though a Muay Thai guy could potentially perform well in point sparring at Karate tournaments, we wouldn't do well in forms or weapons Unless he's learns them both.

MMA hasn't changed anything technique wise, they're still very distinct moves from the respective styles. Other than the competitive ruleset, there is nothing that sets it apart From its root style.

All other martial arts changed from their parent styles, be it in techniques, methods, etc. our TSD front kick is different than many Karate front kicks. As are our stances, forms, etc. But my style comes very obviously from karate.

The difference from MMA, is that we only look SIMILAR, in MMA it's an EXACT technique.

I simply cannot consider it it's own Art when every technique fighters use is very blatantly from another art.

You can't train in Muay Thai\Wrestling. for 5 years and become a Black belt in shotokan. But you can train in shotokan and BJJ for 5 years and perform well in MMA.

 

[Transk53]

No idea myself, so I am going to take a look. Sussex Uni has a school, or whatever applicable term, that runs term only I think, but you do not have to be a student to join in. Clicky below for any thoughts.

Integrated Martial Arts Club Martial Arts ... Sussex sport University of Sussex

 

[drop bear]

I don't consider MMA an art.

Again, your MMA most likely comes from whatever outside competition you try to compete it. It isn't anything specific to MMA, it's all picture perfect techs from other styles and systems.

But even this this isn't really true. A Muay Thai guy wouldn't perform well at all in sport tkd, the technique is vastly different, combos, how they fight in general, etc. He'd have to learn some TKD. A boxer won't win a Naga Championship Without learning BJJ.

Even though a Muay Thai guy could potentially perform well in point sparring at Karate tournaments, we wouldn't do well in forms or weapons Unless he's learns them both.

MMA hasn't changed anything technique wise, they're still very distinct moves from the respective styles. Other than the competitive ruleset, there is nothing that sets it apart From its root style.

All other martial arts changed from their parent styles, be it in techniques, methods, etc. our TSD front kick is different than many Karate front kicks. As are our stances, forms, etc. But my style comes very obviously from karate.

The difference from MMA, is that we only look SIMILAR, in MMA it's an EXACT technique.

I simply cannot consider it it's own Art when every technique fighters use is very blatantly from another art.

You can't train in Muay Thai\Wrestling. for 5 years and become a Black belt in shotokan. But you can train in shotokan and BJJ for 5 years and perform well in MMA.

Mma has fundamentally changed from their parent styles. But it is hard to spot. But regardless changing the combination off moves defines a style as well.

I will post a video of a mma friend of mine and you can work out what style his stance came from.

 

[Drose427]

Mma has fundamentally changed from their parent styles. But it is hard to spot. But regardless changing the combination off moves defines a style as well.

I will post a video of a mma friend of mine and you can work out what style his stance came from.

Stance is the only real change I've ever seen.

Simply because a pure MT or Boxing stance is awful in mMMA because of the grappling.

 

[ShotoNoob]

Ok, here for the record, the above is not an example of a great corner-man at all and not what I have personally experienced - but I have seen plenty of poor ring advice given out when watching fights so I will grant you that.
A good corner-man in the above situation would be saying along the lines of, "Stay out of the corners, move off-line, hit-and-move, hit-and-move, make hi m chase you, tire him out, etc, etc"|

They are not often going to say, "you are getting pummelled by a giant, so go head-to-head". : )

|
Well I don't need a corner man so that's one reason my answer about them was so poor.. Was being rhetorical, ya got me.
|
The bolded portion, though, does highlight what I am driving at. I could care less if I'm in a corner or in the center. Because I change as the situation changes, always with a PRINCIPLED response. Ippon Kumite taught to white belts teaches you to move off-line. Traditional karate, for success, DEMANDS you take that into the fight. You don't forget it once you move from ippon kumite to jiyu kumitie. You must carry the principles over.... no exceptions. This is what I mean about MENTAL DISCIPLINE.
|
Hit & move is good. In traditional karate, it's hit & finish. Or block & move, then hit again & finish. And how about block / strike. How much block-strike do you seen in sport karate kumite or MMA. You've got have these skills in traditional karate fighting....
|
And don't forget it's how you hit, where you hit, and follow up after the hit to finish the opponent, WHILE staving off any assault at the same time. Key word in traditional karate is FINISH.

 

[drop bear]

Stance is the only real change I've ever seen.

Simply because a pure MT or Boxing stance is awful in mMMA because of the grappling.

lots of changes. A lot of them subtle. Some of them obvious. Where did striking entries into someone elses guard originate from? Bjj had guard. Nobody was countering guard with stand up though.

Anyway modified stance to accommodate takedowns. Black shorts,starts on the left.

 

[drop bear]

You can't train in Muay Thai\Wrestling. for 5 years and become a Black belt in shotokan. But you can train in shotokan and BJJ for 5 years and perform well in MMA.

Can you train shotokan and bjj and get a black belt in mma?

 

[drop bear]

|
Well I don't need a corner man so that's one reason my answer about them was so poor.. Was being rhetorical, ya got me.
|
The bolded portion, though, does highlight what I am driving at. I could care less if I'm in a corner or in the center. Because I change as the situation changes, always with a PRINCIPLED response. Ippon Kumite taught to white belts teaches you to move off-line. Traditional karate, for success, DEMANDS you take that into the fight. You don't forget it once you move from ippon kumite to jiyu kumitie. You must carry the principles over.... no exceptions. This is what I mean about MENTAL DISCIPLINE.
|
Hit & move is good. In traditional karate, it's hit & finish. Or block & move, then hit again & finish. And how about block / strike. How much block-strike do you seen in sport karate kumite or MMA. You've got have these skills in traditional karate fighting....
|
And don't forget it's how you hit, where you hit, and follow up after the hit to finish the opponent, WHILE staving off any assault at the same time. Key word in traditional karate is FINISH.

Making a lot of claims how karate solves all your fighting issues because it is karate. It is a self fulfilling prophecy. And I just don't think it works like that.

Certainly doesn't for anyone else.

 

[ShotoNoob]

...I just happen to disagree with you as to the value of a corner man in the sporting/ring environment or the "corner-man" (mentor) in the real world, non-ring environment. But that's fine, it can be good to disagree and test each other's position - sometimes a great thing happens in debate and you actually realise that what you had whole-heartedly understood to be correct (or had bought into as your teacher's gospel teachings), is actually in correct, or that someone else's approach is better.

That in my view is only a good thing - if you are open-minded enough to accept that.

|
Well, the real problem IMO, is I'm going against convention. Take a look at the JKA Shotokan Kumite on YT. The competitors are in there by themselves. There is no coaching from the sidelines. So there is a style-wide reason & a basis for that practice in traditional karate.
|
I felt bad for the MMA loser in my story. IMO, he was ill-equipped to take on the larger, more aggressive opponent. That was my conclusion as a coach. Talking him into confidence just wasn't going to work....
|
Incidentally, the same for Machida against Shogun Rua. No corner man (IMO) could help Lyoto in those fights. Definitely same for Machida's Jones fight, Round 2. That was devastating for me.... but I saw it coming way before Jones got to Machida @ UFC 140.

 

[ShotoNoob]

Making a lot of claims how karate solves all your fighting issues because it is karate. It is a self fulfilling prophecy. And I just don't think it works like that.

Certainly doesn't for anyone else.

^^^
Rhetorical. I'm talking about the skills traditional karate training can provide if done true to the Masters. Of course that's a very hard path to take, scary-DROP BEAR.

 

[Drose427]

Can you train shotokan and bjj and get a black belt in mma?

No, but i've never seen an mma school with a belt system....again, I can still perform competitively with Shotokan and BJJ.

If youre talking about striking while in guard (yours or theirs) you really can't attribute that to MMA...folks without any for of training to that while grappling in schoolyard rumbles....it's just natural, I can hit you, so I will.

As for your video, yes the stances aren't standard boxing or MT obviously for takedown defense.

The start was normal boxing, with a little brawling while trying to not get hit,

Leg kick was exactly how you see a uick front leg leg kick in Shotokan (our local shoring school does it the exact same way as well).

The takedown wasn't a picture Perfect double leg as we were taught in wrestling, but you still will see it done that way at tourneys. Some guys prefer to try and drive through that way than to the side.

The grappling was a lot of defensive BJJ with strikes allowed. That's not construct of MMA nor a technique specific to MMA, again you see it in schoolyard rumbles,

Again, MMA is a rules facilitating limited rules that encourage training in multiple styles imo

 

[Transk53]

No, but i've never seen an mma school with a belt system....again, I can still perform competitively with Shotokan and BJJ.

If youre talking about striking while in guard (yours or theirs) you really can't attribute that to MMA...folks without any for of training to that while grappling in schoolyard rumbles....it's just natural, I can hit you, so I will.

As for your video, yes the stances aren't standard boxing or MT obviously for takedown defense.

The start was normal boxing, with a little brawling while trying to not get hit,

Leg kick was exactly how you see a uick front leg leg kick in Shotokan (our local shoring school does it the exact same way as well).

The takedown wasn't a picture Perfect double leg as we were taught in wrestling, but you still will see it done that way at tourneys. Some guys prefer to try and drive through that way than to the side.

The grappling was a lot of defensive BJJ with strikes allowed. That's not construct of MMA nor a technique specific to MMA, again you see it in schoolyard rumbles,

Again, MMA is a rules facilitating limited rules that encourage training in multiple styles imo

You forget the unorthodox.

 

[ShotoNoob]

You can't train in Muay Thai\Wrestling. for 5 years and become a Black belt in shotokan. But you can train in shotokan and BJJ for 5 years and perform well in MMA.

|
I concur with this last statement. I believe your approach would bring the opportunity for great success to MMA practitioners.