MMA vs. SD

[Daniel Sullivan]

Personally, I don't see MMA as "a martial art", though I do see MMA competitors as martial artists. I see MMA as martial sport, participated in by individuals who are trained in several individual martial arts.

MMA competition is essentially open competition with no restriction on style, which makes it a rule set, not an MA.

MMA stands for mixed martial arts, which makes it a term for people who practice more than one art and compete in competitions that allow them to utilize the skills that they have from those arts.

Someone posted here a while back that MMA was developing into its own specific style, essentially consisting of those moves that are most effective in competition. This is essentially training for a focused competition, which is not the same as a martial art.

The difference between MMA, wrestling, sport fencing, and perhaps savatte (not sure on that one) versus the other arts that are mentioned in Stevebjj's post is that competition is only a small portion of those arts.

Taekwondo in its full curriculum has a large quantity of techiques that are not a part of competition, SD, philosophy, and poomsae. That doesn't make it 'superior' to MMA.

In the same way, SD is only a portion of taekwondo, not the whole. The aspect of it as a fighting system outside of the ring is the main focus of taekwondo.

Certainly, there is overlap between SD, MMA, and Taekwondo; all of the arts that contribute to MMA have an SD element, so MMA competitors will have SD training. MMA is a fighting system, and though it is geared towards use in the ring.

Lets not forget that while MMA is not taekwondo, taekwondo is a part of MMA, as a good number of MMA competitors either have a TKD background or crosstrain in TKD for improvement in kicks.

Daniel

 

[Nolerama]

Most people have various mental blocks that prevent them from causing serious harm to others. of course, these blocks sometimes crumble under extreme stress. only a certain percentage of the population is truely sociopathic....i.e. 'natural born killers'.

the conventional wisdom is that too much competition dulls the self defensive capability because it tends to reinforce the mental blocks against extreme violence. in the ring, there are rules, and the intent is to 'win' or submit the opponent, not kill him. to be sure, some have died, and others have recieved grevious injuries, but i highly doubt those instances were intentional. nobody was sitting in the dressing room going, " I'm going to go out and murder this guy tonight!"

the system i train in is 'teh d33dly', and our founder had killed multiple men before coming to america. my art is SD MA and not for competition.

beyond the techniques, the real goal of traditional TMA self defense training is to override the inhibitions that are in place against violence. it seeks to break various conditionings, whether they be genetic or social, that effectively 'stop' someone from issuing full force against another.

in short, TMA is intended to create the aforementioned sociopath.

MMA is a martial art, it's just not one that is designed to make people into killers, is all.

and as footnote, the old school tourneys often did result in death, maiming and the like. by those standards, today's MMA and SD arts are highly filtered and/or 'softened'.


regards.

JMBarr
RedAntGungFu
( Liu Seong derivative)

Not to burst your bubble, but I've run into a TON of TMA-oriented folks who can't seem to handle themselves getting punched in the face (at least the first time). Assuming your blanket statements are correct, all TMA-oriented folks are "above" sport violence, and "accustomed" to extreme violence?

Show me the proof, man. Because I just don't see it on someone who hasn't tested his/her skill in some sort of competition.

The truth of the matter is that instead of promoting your ideas on TMA vs Sport MA, you should be (WE should all be) promoting the concept that there is functional validity in almost all MA.

But giving your student a false hope that since his art is deadly, so he's above a functional martial artist? That's just the wrong kind of Kool-Aid; the kind that could get someone killed on the street.

Show me functionality. Don't shovel words about T3h Deadly MA and instructors saying they killed people. I thought this was 21st Century.

With all due respect, I suggest waking up.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

the system i train in is 'teh d33dly', and our founder had killed multiple men before coming to america. my art is SD MA and not for competition.

You mean that the actual name of the system you train in is 'teh d33dly'?? Never heard of a TMA named in L33T speak.

beyond the techniques, the real goal of traditional TMA self defense training is to override the inhibitions that are in place against violence. it seeks to break various conditionings, whether they be genetic or social, that effectively 'stop' someone from issuing full force against another.

in short, TMA is intended to create the aforementioned sociopath.

No, TMA's varry greatly in their intent. Funakoshi and Kano certainly weren't trying to do this. Quite the opposite.

Most TMA's are fighting systems designed to enable you to either defend yourself when unarmed or disarmed, or to be used on the battlefield. Unless a battlefield oriented TMA is coupled with the military indoctrination of the time in which such TMA's were used, you certainly won't get anything close to a sociopath. And even with military indoctrination, you won't get a sociopath; the military wants soldiers, not sociopaths, and sociopaths don't make the best soldiers.

Daniel

 

[CDKJudoka]

The military wants soldiers, not sociopaths, and sociopaths don't make the best soldiers.

Daniel

I resemble that remark.

The Military should break any sociopathy that may be present in the individual, and if it doesn't the person learns to mask it. Sociopaths are good at that. I should know.

 

[Tez3]

I resemble that remark.

The Military should break any sociopathy that may be present in the individual, and if it doesn't the person learns to mask it. Sociopaths are good at that. I should know.

You're right all the way.
The sociopaths go into the special forces...well, you didn't think those guys were normal did you?

 

[CDKJudoka]

You're right all the way.
The sociopaths go into the special forces...well, you didn't think those guys were normal did you?

That must explain why I went in the the Rangers. We have to be crazy to willingly jump out of a perfectly good airplane.

 

[Twin Fist]

Jarrod,
since you asked so nice, I will be happy to blather on. it's something ilike to do anyway.

now, before i go into detail, be advised, this is just my opinion, i dont expect anyone to agree, and as i said, I dont really care if anyone agrees with me or not.

ok.

First, some definitions for this discussion:

fighting system-a group of techniques taught together as a collection with a unifying theme

Intent-the goal of the fighting system, it's purpose

now, here is the meat of it.

when I think about "is this a martial art" for me, it boils down to INTENT

was the fighting system founded to provide self defense, or to compete in a sport with rules?

As i said in a previous thread, judo was created for competition, as was BJJ. They are sports. They may have some SD application, but that isnt thier INTENT. They were designed from the ground up with one thing in mind, sport. Same with Thai Boxing. (side note: the original art that Muai Thai was based on was a combat art, but that is lost to time now. Muai Thai now exists only as a sport)

Most TMA's however were not designed for sport. They were designed for combat, and have to be HIGHLY modified to be used in a sport setting.

Now that being said, there is the matter of the teacher. An instructor can change the intent of the fighting system.

Someone could teach BJJ and focus on Self defense-it would be crappy half assed self defense, unless he added material to the fighting system, but he could do it. Same with judo.

some do teach TKD, or Shotokan or whatever as sports, but they have to leave out large parts of the fighting system to modify it for sport settings.

Starting to see the difference?

For example, I dont teach or modify my system for sport in anyway. In fact, I tell all my students that I do not teach so they can go to tounaments. That has cost me some students in fact. But I dont care.

Self defense is what i focus on, to the exclusion of sport. So, i determine by my teaching method, that TKD, MY tkd is a MA.

Someone else's TKD may be taught as a sport

Now that being said, ALL TKD was designed and founded for combat, not sport, so TKD is a MA. Same with most styles of karate, Kung Fu, etc

MMA exist for only one reason, sport. Thats it, thats all.

ergo, not a MA.

A fighting system sure, but not a MA

Now you mentioned Aikido. Trust me, done right, as O-Sensei originally taught it? deadly as hell. Same with original japanese juijitsu for that matter. And notice, there are no aikido tournaments.

so, in short, here is a good litmus test:

do you have to heavily modify the fighting system to use it in a competition? thats prob a martial art

do you have to modify the fighting system to use it for self defense? thats prob a sport

also, you mentioned different taining aids, well, the makiwara hardens the hand, making it into a very hard, very destructive weapon. Thats clearly for self defense, and you notice, in this sport crazy age, not many people do makiwara anymore.

Thank you for your attention.

 

[dancingalone]

Now you mentioned Aikido. Trust me, done right, as O-Sensei originally taught it? deadly as hell. Same with original japanese juijitsu for that matter. And notice, there are no aikido tournaments.

Tomiki aikido does compete in randori-style tournaments, but I generally agree with your post. I only differ in that I think sport styles like judo or BJJ can be modified more easily than you do for practical self-defense. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[Nolerama]

Jarrod,
since you asked so nice, I will be happy to blather on. it's something ilike to do anyway.

now, before i go into detail, be advised, this is just my opinion, i dont expect anyone to agree, and as i said, I dont really care if anyone agrees with me or not.

ok.

First, some definitions for this discussion:

fighting system-a group of techniques taught together as a collection with a unifying theme

Intent-the goal of the fighting system, it's purpose

now, here is the meat of it.

when I think about "is this a martial art" for me, it boils down to INTENT

was the fighting system founded to provide self defense, or to compete in a sport with rules?

As i said in a previous thread, judo was created for competition, as was BJJ. They are sports. They may have some SD application, but that isnt thier INTENT. They were designed from the ground up with one thing in mind, sport. Same with Thai Boxing. (side note: the original art that Muai Thai was based on was a combat art, but that is lost to time now. Muai Thai now exists only as a sport)

Most TMA's however were not designed for sport. They were designed for combat, and have to be HIGHLY modified to be used in a sport setting.

Now that being said, there is the matter of the teacher. An instructor can change the intent of the fighting system.

Someone could teach BJJ and focus on Self defense-it would be crappy half assed self defense, unless he added material to the fighting system, but he could do it. Same with judo.

some do teach TKD, or Shotokan or whatever as sports, but they have to leave out large parts of the fighting system to modify it for sport settings.

Starting to see the difference?

For example, I dont teach or modify my system for sport in anyway. In fact, I tell all my students that I do not teach so they can go to tounaments. That has cost me some students in fact. But I dont care.

Self defense is what i focus on, to the exclusion of sport. So, i determine by my teaching method, that TKD, MY tkd is a MA.

Someone else's TKD may be taught as a sport

Now that being said, ALL TKD was designed and founded for combat, not sport, so TKD is a MA. Same with most styles of karate, Kung Fu, etc

MMA exist for only one reason, sport. Thats it, thats all.

ergo, not a MA.

A fighting system sure, but not a MA

Now you mentioned Aikido. Trust me, done right, as O-Sensei originally taught it? deadly as hell. Same with original japanese juijitsu for that matter. And notice, there are no aikido tournaments.

so, in short, here is a good litmus test:

do you have to heavily modify the fighting system to use it in a competition? thats prob a martial art

do you have to modify the fighting system to use it for self defense? thats prob a sport

also, you mentioned different taining aids, well, the makiwara hardens the hand, making it into a very hard, very destructive weapon. Thats clearly for self defense, and you notice, in this sport crazy age, not many people do makiwara anymore.

Thank you for your attention.

"My art is better than your art" is what I'm getting out of that... Lol.

TKD is also a sport. It's in the Olympics. I respect that... Heck, there's a sport application to almost anything. Chess. Ironing Clothes. Eating.

We get it.

Take two people. One is an athlete, the other is scrawny. Both untrained in MAs. In a street fight, the athlete has the edge. In fact, there's no question about it.

Take those same two people, give them some sort of MA. The athlete trains in a combat sport. The unathletic person trains in whatever you assume is a True Martial Art. They've trained for the same amount of time.

The athlete still has the drop on the guy because there's that sheer physicality from training for sport, as well as the confidence in his own technique because he's tested it before.

Take the two of them, and pit them each against the stereotype of an attacker. Perfect technique can only go so far. Who cares if you can throw a kick properly when it has no strength or power behind it? I'll still bet on the athlete.

So please, quit knocking or dismissing what you consider "sport" because MAs are all sports with rules and regulations; some more apparent than others. It's ultimately up to the practitioner to decide his/her level of athleticism, dedication to technique, and the ability to figure out what works for them in a real situation.

 

[Twin Fist]

"My art is better than your art" is what I'm getting out of that... Lol.

Then you need to read it again.

Nowhere does it say any thing is better than any other thing

i was asked why I think things are different from other things

i explained my thought process

you cant tell me I am wrong, because I am not. It is opinion, and I am not stating it as fact. So there is no right or wrong.

but, this:

"Perfect technique can only go so far. Who cares if you can throw a kick properly when it has no strength or power behind it? I'll still bet on the athlete."

if you are throwing the kick properly, it will be a strong kick. Classic training methods work just fine. you wanna make your legs strong? try a couple thousand hours in a horse stance.

"So please, quit knocking or dismissing what you consider "sport" because MAs are all sports with rules and regulations"

For one thing, I am not knocking anything. Nowhere have I said that anything was good or bad

And another thing Not all Martial arts are sports, tho most can be used and or taught that way WITH MODIFICATIONS.

"It's ultimately up to the practitioner to decide his/her level of athleticism, dedication to technique, and the ability to figure out what works for them in a real situation."

Sports are by defintion, not "real situations" rules take you right out of the realm of "real"

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

"My art is better than your art" is what I'm getting out of that... Lol.

That isn't what I got, but I will use that as a springboard to make an observation.

Some arts are better than others for some things. BJJ is a better art than taekwondo for groundfighting. Why? TKD has little to none unless it is grafted on from another art. TKD is a better art to Shotokan for high, flashy kicks. Why? TKD focuses on high flashy kicks in a way that Shotokan does not.

But no art is inherently superior to another art.

Every art has its pros and cons, so it really comes down to what you want ouf of it.

Daniel

 

[Nolerama]

I'm not telling you you're wrong. I'm just saying that it would be respectful to give credit where credit is due: functionality and athleticism are huge factors (quite possibly deciding factors) in winning/surviving a fight, SD or Sport.

And I don't think that thousands of hours in horse stance make you a better kicker. Strong legs and technique make you a better kicker and you can get that being a good athlete as well.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I'd say that thousands of hours in a horse stance may not directly relate to kicking technique, but it will strengthen the legs, particularly the quads and glutes, which should certainly help in any endeavor using those muscle groups, including kicks.

Daniel

 

[Twin Fist]

Nole,
I gave credit where it is due.

I said that BJJ/MMA might have some self defense use.

In fact, I gave it more credit than it is due since I dont really think much of bjj/mma as self defense systems at all, and whats worse? I see MMA as pandering to the lowest common denominator.

and you can think that spending hours i the gym makes you more likely to survive a fight, but you mma types always forget one basic thing

technique trumps strength every time. Proper technique IS strong technique

 

[searcher]

yeah but the problem is how do you test your SD skills without going to prison?

as i've brought up before, almost every warrior class throughout history has participated in some sort of sport or formalized fighting. it obviously has value for SD.

jf

You knwo, your post makes me think of the gladiators of Rome. I am sure that they did not consider what they were doing as SD. but the heck if they were not practicingit day in/ day out. That is, IMO, very much like MMA today.

 

[Nolerama]

Nole,
I gave credit where it is due.

I said that BJJ/MMA might have some self defense use.

In fact, I gave it more credit than it is due since I dont really think much of bjj/mma as self defense systems at all, and whats worse? I see MMA as pandering to the lowest common denominator.

and you can think that spending hours i the gym makes you more likely to survive a fight, but you mma types always forget one basic thing

technique trumps strength every time. Proper technique IS strong technique

I think it's understood that we can agree to disagree.

However, I think saying "you MMA types" is kind of funny. Because you don't know my "type" and, no, we don't ALWAYS do anything. Jeez, man. You love lumping people into groups, don't you?

I agree that technique is important, but doesn't trump ANYTHING because the real world is a lot less forgiving when it comes to technique; especially in a SD situation. Sometimes you won't have time to pull off your technique. So I think you're wrong on that point.

Oh yeah, I think talking up your art/way of thinking like it's the best thing in the world, and call another style of LEARNING (we all have base arts) "pandering to the lowest common denominator" is hypocritical and ultimately short-sighted.

Sorry, I'm not going to bow to you on this one simply because you stated what you think is fact.

 

[Twin Fist]

and yet, you are STILL trying to tell me I am wrong......

MMA fanboys, a pain in the *** since 1992 and counting.....

Of course I lump people into groups, thats the way the world works. Everyone belongs to some kind of group. Human society functions that way.

and BTW- sure I know your type. Your profile says it all. Arts: mma/bjj

tells me everything I need to know.

but, lets assume I am wrong.

Got a black belt in anything?

anything at all?

And when i say "lowest common denominator" I dont mean the worst people, I mean what I see as the worst part of the human mind set.

the easy way.

MMA is the easy way

want great kicks but cant be bothered to learn TKD? want great hands but dont have time to study boxing? want to roll around on the ground but dont wanna bother learning judo?

then come on down to the buffet, get everything in one place

except buffet food? it usually isnt that great. Jack of all trades, master of none.

that is contrary to my mind set. I would rather be great at one thing that works than have half assed ability to do 20 things. Most mma types have 2 kicks, 2 punches, a couple of locks, not much of any one thing, and they tend to not be great at any one thing, but rather mediocre at many things.

thats great for some people, some people love buffets.

not for me.

and this is off topic. Someone asked me for my thought process on what is or os not a martial art, I explained it, and as I said, I really, REALLY dont give a crap if you agree.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Got a black belt in anything?

anything at all?.

Not really wanting to climb back “down” into this pit of MMA vs TMA or in this case MMA vs TKD… which could be interpreted as one sport MA vs another sport MA.

I could be wrong here but if part of your argument is that if you don't have a Black belt you are not skilled then you have just effectively told 98% of all CMA practitioners world wide they have no skill as well as a whole lot of other East Asian MA styles.


Also BJJ has a belt system and it is a rather hard road to go to get one, harder than many MAs out there today actually.

 

[Twin Fist]

not my contention at all Xue

sorry if it looked that way.

 

[Xue Sheng]

not my contention at all Xue

sorry if it looked that way.

No problem

Just making sure and doing my best to keep THOUSANDS of CMA people form getting offended and telling you that you have offended their family and you have offended the Shaolin Temple