MMA vs TaiChi

[Ironbear24]

As for the benefits, as Jow-Ga stated, this will hopefully push more traditional styles to step up and prove the fighting prowess of their system.

The rule set doesn't matter because they are similar enough to get the point across. With kudo and sanda you are striking hard and grappling hard. As for the bjj I honestly see none of it with Cung Ii, he spends all of his fights on his feet. He was probably introduced to it but like the majority of fighters in today's time don't touch it.

Most TMA has done this already, the issue with you is whenever this is done you suddenly begin calling them an MMA.

 

[JowGaWolf]

As for the bjj I honestly see none of it with Cung Ii, he spends all of his fights on his feet.

This is one of the reasons why I like him as an MMA fighter. He did a little BJJ, but I think it was to familiarize and not to learn. He wanted to to have of understanding of what they are doing when they are trying to do it. If he can recognize what is happening then he can apply a non-bjj solution to deal with it. I prefer this over the mindset that I HAVE TO DO BJJ, in order to deal with BJJ. I like with people can find a solution to deal with another system without going out of their own system.
He did really good with fighting with the principles of CMAs. Fight on your feet and not on the ground. If you fall to the ground then don't stay there. When you see strikers go against BJJ you will almost always see that they fail to recognize the same tactic of the shoot. Cung Li did a good job of addressing those techniques which meant he didn't spend a lot of time on the ground.

I like people finding solutions within their own systems because to do so requires them to have a deeper understanding of their system and a familiarity of the system that they are going against.

 

[Ironbear24]

This is one of the reasons why I like him as an MMA fighter. He did a little BJJ, but I think it was to familiarize and not to learn. He wanted to to have of understanding of what they are doing when they are trying to do it. If he can recognize what is happening then he can apply a non-bjj solution to deal with it. I prefer this over the mindset that I HAVE TO DO BJJ, in order to deal with BJJ. I like with people can find a solution to deal with another system without going out of their own system.
He did really good with fighting with the principles of CMAs. Fight on your feet and not on the ground. If you fall to the ground then don't stay there. When you see strikers go against BJJ you will almost always see that they fail to recognize the same tactic of the shoot. Cung Li did a good job of addressing those techniques which meant he didn't spend a lot of time on the ground.

I like people finding solutions within their own systems because to do so requires them to have a deeper understanding of their system and a familiarity of the system that they are going against.

I have never done CMA, but I do train in methods heavily inspired by CMA, in the end though I am more a Japanese martial arts guy, and all of my fighting "bleeds it." Even if I try something else.

Even with hybrid martial art like shou shu karate (kenpo offshoot.) We are told to only take it to the ground if you know your opponent is alone, and most of our ne waza is more designed to get back onto your feet rather than continue on the ground.

With judo I always prefer tachi waza as well, I don't do ground fighting, I pick up enough of it to know how to avoid it and that is how I have always been trained. I have luckily never been taken the ground and always toss them or break the clinch before it happens.

It will happen though and when it does I can use the get back on your feet method.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

while traditional arts strive to stay true to their founder's original goals (with some disciples going so far as to believe that their founder's skills were perfect).

There are many skills that a stand up throwing art (such as Chinese wrestling) tries to preserve which is different from the ground game art (such as BJJ) tries to promote.

1. Mobility - the ability to take down your opponent and then take off.
2. Throwing resistance - hard to be taken down.
3. Remain balance after throwing - your throwing doesn't not affect your own balance.
4. Get back up fast from the ground.
5. Throwing combo - use one throw to set up another throw.
6. ...

 

[Hanzou]

The rule set doesn't matter because they are similar enough to get the point across. With kudo and sanda you are striking hard and grappling hard. As for the bjj I honestly see none of it with Cung Ii, he spends all of his fights on his feet. He was probably introduced to it but like the majority of fighters in today's time don't touch it.

He has a blue belt in Bjj. That's far more than just being introduced to it.

Most TMA has done this already, the issue with you is whenever this is done you suddenly begin calling them an MMA.

Actually the issue is whenever TMAs get exposed, the fall back excuse is that they weren't really true practicioners of TMA.

I suppose that's better than the excuse that TMAs aren't designed for consensual fighting.....

 

[Tez3]

BJJ is a TMA.

 

[Hanzou]

BJJ is a TMA.

Considering it's rapid evolution, it's definitely not a TMA. Modern Bjj is quite different than the Bjj seen in the first UFC for example.

 

[Buka]

Considering it's rapid evolution, it's definitely not a TMA. Modern Bjj is quite different than the Bjj seen in the first UFC for example.

I'm curious about this. Do you think that's because it's evolved with more of a sport aspect to it? And do you think it's pretty much across the board in BJJ, or select to certain organizations. (don't know if "organizations" is the right word)

 

[Buka]

I don't like this as well. There's value in keeping record of the founders original goals as well as the techniques, but trying to make it hold true as "this is how it should always be done," guarantees that it won't be able to adapt against a style for which the techniques were never originally designed to go against. Ironically the reason why there are so many types of TMA is specifically for the reason that they were adapting and evolving the systems. TMAs weren't born perfect, they were developed. So it just makes no sense to really force a TMA system not to adapt, especially for the sake of just Tradition. It's possible to do both.

Imagine if this remained traditional.

Imagine if we still had to wear those shorts?

 

[drop bear]

I'm curious about this. Do you think that's because it's evolved with more of a sport aspect to it? And do you think it's pretty much across the board in BJJ, or select to certain organizations. (don't know if "organizations" is the right word)

Because it is created through its practitioners not so much its instructors.

I mentioned it on a thread somewhere.

 

[drop bear]

It is about what you are trying to achieve. The genisis of CMA comes from its creator. The aim is to replicate what its creator was trying to do as closely as possible.

The genisis of MMA comes from its practitioners who are trying to better the ideas of its creator.

So we have two outlooks that are morally opposed to each other.

It flares up all the time in mindset and aplication.

Here we go. Important difference.

 

[Hanzou]

I'm curious about this. Do you think that's because it's evolved with more of a sport aspect to it? And do you think it's pretty much across the board in BJJ, or select to certain organizations. (don't know if "organizations" is the right word)

I do think the competitive aspect definitely has had a massive effect on it, because its the testing ground for many of the techniques. As I said before, Bjj has two major forces constantly acting on it; MMA and Competitive Bjj, and its shaped and kept in check by those forces. When Sakuruba started subbing the Gracie family for example, wrestling and catch started creeping into Bjj. Another example would be No gi grappling gaining prominence in competitive Bjj largely do to the influence of MMA.

I personally believe that the art is better for it. We just have to be careful that we don't drift too far into the sport realm.

I've pretty much only been in Gracie organizations, so I really can't comment on how it is elsewhere. However, I dabbled in 10th planet JJ and brought back a bit of the half guard game with me when I went back to Gracie JJ and no one said anything to me.

 

[Ironbear24]

He has a blue belt in Bjj. That's far more than just being introduced to it.



Actually the issue is whenever TMAs get exposed, the fall back excuse is that they weren't really true practicioners of TMA.

I suppose that's better than the excuse that TMAs aren't designed for consensual fighting.....

And how about all the "TMA" that does not fail in it? You then begin calling them MMA as we have seen it in the past. You for example call kyokyushin karate an MMA when nobody else has done that, that is literally exclusive to only you claiming it.

You did the same with kenpo as well as Judo claiming that they are modern arts because they compete or some nonsense like that.

The truth is you don't want to see any TMA get anywhere because you simply have a massive negative bias toward TMA. Further more the terms don't even make any damn sense, muay thai for example is considered by many an MMA, what the hell is so modern about an art that is over 1000 years old? What is so modern about kicking banana trees and beating people to a pulp?

And with kyokyushin, what is so modern about punching and kicking trees and smashing through boards and slabs of brick? People have been doing that **** for how many centuries? Sure kyokyushin may have come about in the late 50's but honestly the majority of it's training methods remain the same.

 

[Steve]

I think kyokushin is an excellent example of a tma that has remained relevant and effective because it has embraced competition.

 

[drop bear]

I think kyokushin is an excellent example of a tma that has remained relevant and effective because it has embraced competition.

I wouldnt go anywhere near a Sudanese stick fighter for the same reason.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Here we go. Important difference.

This over-focus on recreating the original form of the art is a mistake, IMO. It may be useful to maintain some of the original form as a starting point for understanding the art and/or key principles, but trying to maintain exact replication is a failing strategy that also fails to acknowledge that there's always room to improve any art or system. I'm more impressed by an art that is recognizably similar and recognizably different at the same time when comparing two schools, than by one that is identical between those two schools.

 

[Grandmaster Yue men quan]

The reason you don't see tma in mma because stoking someone repeatedly in gb 13 pc1 tai yin, tai yang, or any other accupoint that causes death is not considered mma it looks horrible and doesn't sell.

 

[Buka]

Oh, I don't know, I think strikes to the gb 13 pc1 tai yin causing a few deaths on televised MMA matches defintely would sell. Especially in the heavyweight division. And especially on FOX.

 

[Steve]

He has a point (get it?). Just don't kick him in his taiyang BL23.

 

[Grandmaster Yue men quan]

Tail yin is the temple point on the left siDE of the head if you got kicked there there wouldn't be a fight