MMA vs TMA

[RTKDCMB]

My mistrust of TMA stems from way more than the forms, though I feel that forms are definitely part of the problem.

Think about that school you and I have been talking about. What if I were new to the martial arts and wanted to learn to defend myself and I joined that school? I would spend ample amounts of time and money learning sub par martial arts. I would earn a black sash, and walk around thinking I could defend myself with sloppy praying mantis boxing.

That's just not right.

That's why it pays to shop around until you find a good school.

That sort of thing doesn't happen in Bjj or Judo. In those arts, if you're not doing the real deal, none of the techniques are going to work. For example, if I'm trying to do a Kesa Gatame on someone much larger than me, I need to do it right, or I'm not going to be able to hold them down. If I'm trying to do a rear naked choke on someone, I need to do it right, or the person isn't going to get choked out. If I'm trying to do an Uchi Mata, if I don't do it right I'm not going to be able to throw them. All of that can be done in class against a fully resisting opponent. So I know almost instantly if I'm doing something wrong from the safety of my school. That is the advantage that Bjj and Judo has over TMAs.

In a good TMA school if you are not doing something properly you will know. If your kick is no good then it will not have power when you kick the pads and you will be corrected on it until it does and beyond. If you can't block properly and don't have good defences then attacks will get through. If you are practicing releases from holds and throws and you do them wrong they will not work. If you are in a bad school you may not know or care if you are doing it wrong.

 

[Hanzou]

If we are going to discuss this sensibly then you will need to leave your bias at the front door. You obviously have a short memory, remember that Bjj sparring you were laughing at a few pages back? That was presumably being taught by the BJJ Black Belt that you stated had been drafted into the club...

Bjj sparring isn't done standing up. Bjj sparring begins at most on the knees, and is entirely fought on the ground. You also don't wear headgear and gloves when you spar in Bjj, there's no need for it. The sparring I posted was Kung Fu (or Sansho) based.

Granted, this sort of thing may not be as frequent in BJJ or Judo.

Bjj and Judo don't lend themselves well to that sort of thing. Both arts are highly combative to the point of making it very difficult for a fraud to come in and teach a bunch of BS. It also doesn't help that wrestlers, street fighters, and other types constantly steam into those schools to test the art out. Also everyone's fondest dream is to submit a black belt, and if you're a black belt constantly getting subbed by white belts, or clowns off the street, you're going to lose students fast. In short, you have to know how to fight to be taken seriously as a Bjj or a Judo instructor.

It is the training methods adopted by schools claiming to teach TMAs that is the problem, not the art itself. Just last night we were doing some of the wrist and elbow locks/manipulation with a partner that we have in our system and it wasn't working for me because I wasn't doing it right either. Half an hour later, with a bit of practice and modified technique low and behold the techniques suddenly work and I have control of the person in front of me - because if they didn't move the way I wanted them to then the pain intensifies and they are going to injure themselves. That right there is an example of how TMAs should be taught.

Yes, but how are you testing that joint lock out? Are you doing partner drills, or are you guys both going full blast, exerting all of your energy and force into the blows and the counter locks? If the lock you're doing doesn't work, do you immeadiately transition into a strike or another lock?

We do. Constantly.

Have a free 45 mins and want to learn a little about Praying Mantis Kung Fu, watch this - it is a tv program called Kung Fu Quest.

Sure, I'm always down to watch some Martial Arts stuff.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Yes, but how are you testing that joint lock out? Are you doing partner drills, or are you guys both going full blast, exerting all of your energy and force into the blows and the counter locks? If the lock you're doing doesn't work, do you immeadiately transition into a strike or another lock?

We do. Constantly.

When you do a Kimoura or an arm bar do you do it full force or stop when they tap out? TMA joint locks are not designed for submissions, they are designed to destroy and incapacitate and you can't practice that with full force without injuring your training partner. If I put someone in a wrist/arm lock I don't have to break their arm to know it will work. As I am sure Mr doo will tell you, yes in a TMA that is taught properly you will be taught to immediately transition to a strike if the lock doesn't work and often you will strike before applying the hold.

 

[Dinkydoo]

Bjj sparring isn't done standing up. Bjj sparring begins at most on the knees, and is entirely fought on the ground. You also don't wear headgear and gloves when you spar in Bjj, there's no need for it. The sparring I posted was Kung Fu (or Sansho) based.

Ah, but how many street fights do you see starting on knees - hardly training for the 'real world' is it?

Fair enough, but they WERE wearing GIs and immediately went looking to grapple, so I thought it was fair to assume that this was BJJ based.

Bjj and Judo don't lend themselves well to that sort of thing. Both arts are highly combative to the point of making it very difficult for a fraud to come in and teach a bunch of BS. It also doesn't help that wrestlers, street fighters, and other types constantly steam into those schools to test the art out. Also everyone's fondest dream is to submit a black belt, and if you're a black belt constantly getting subbed by white belts, or clowns off the street, you're going to lose students fast. In short, you have to know how to fight to be taken seriously as a Bjj or a Judo instructor.

The lack of competitiveness in TMA clubs CAN lead to poor quality students - from good and bad clubs. Bad clubs; we've been over. Good clubs; in the TMAs I've trained there certainly is a varying degree of commitment and drive shown by students where on one hand you have student A (me!) who gets up at 6:00 this morning so that I can fit two hours training in prior to University and student B who trains hard only once/twice per week. If Student B was getting their *** handed to them in training every week then they might not last very long. It will happen when they are paired up with someone like Student A for sparring but probably less than a club training in a competition style.

Yes, but how are you testing that joint lock out? Are you doing partner drills, or are you guys both going full blast, exerting all of your energy and force into the blows and the counter locks? If the lock you're doing doesn't work, do you immeadiately transition into a strike or another lock?

We do. Constantly.

We're not usually going full blast no, but we do resist the lock that our partner is trying to put us in. As for flowing and chaining techniques together (whether they succeed or not); Yes, all the time man! Chain theory! THIS is what our style of northern mantis is all about.

Sure, I'm always down to watch some Martial Arts stuff.

Cool.

I guess if you are disregarding TMAs as a whole then you should know a bit about some of the styles your grouping together under that umbrella. Kung Fu quest is made up of fighters from all walks of life (some MMA) training in traditional Kung Fu styles solid for a couple of weeks and contemplating on what they've learned. There is some light (sometimes bare knuckle) sparring throughout the series - cant remember if the Northern/Southern Mantis stuff is that good - probably better skill wise than YouTube videos though if my memory serves me well.

I quite like the Karate guy taking up Wing Chun in the WC episode, quite fun (for someone like me) to watch,

 

[Steve]

first, I just want to be on record as saying that I don't really care what anyone does for fun. It seems like some misconceptions are being thrown around regarding BJJ, so I'll try to clear some of that up.

If you want to train in Tai Chi, Karate or flying monkey soup style, I don't care. Have fun. Knock yourself out.

First, BJJ is a traditional martial art. It has roots in traditional japanese styles that are shared with many other modern styles. As a distinct, unique style, it was developed in the early 1900's, and is as old as many modern martial arts styles and older than some, including TKD, Okinawan Karate, modern Judo, Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, yang style Tai Chi, Chen style Tai Chi, San Shou... and the list goes on.

When you do a Kimoura or an arm bar do you do it full force or stop when they tap out?

Depends upon who I'm sparring with. If I'm sparring with another purple belt or higher, then yes. I wouldput the kimura on full force... until it is successfully defended or my opponent taps out. The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can spar full speed/full force AND keep your partner safe.

TMA joint locks are not designed for submissions, they are designed to destroy and incapacitate and you can't practice that with full force without injuring your training partner.

I disagree. Well, more accurately, whether a technique will work or not is different than whether you can apply it successfully or not. If you don't ever do it "full force" then you do not know whether it will work for you.

If I put someone in a wrist/arm lock I don't have to break their arm to know it will work.

That's why your opponent should tap before their arm is broken. In any grappling art, such as Judo or BJJ, the techniques are also capable of breaking bone or permanently damaging a joint. So, while you don't have to break the joint to know whether a technique works, if you don't apply the techniques in real speed against a resisting opponent, you can't know whether you can set the technique up or apply it fully speed.

 

[RTKDCMB]

There's a reason Judo supplanted classical Jujutsu in Japan for example, because the Judo guys wiped the floor with them.

I think Judo supplanted classical Jujutsu in Japan because it could easily be transformed into a sport and thus became more popular.

 

[Dinkydoo]

first, I just want to be on record as saying that I don't really care what anyone does for fun ....

If you want to train in Tai Chi, Karate or flying monkey soup style, I don't care. Have fun. Knock yourself out.

Oh, a comment taking the piss, great thread introduction. Really, was there any need for that?

First, BJJ is a traditional martial art. It has roots in traditional japanese styles that are shared with many other modern styles. As a distinct, unique style, it was developed in the early 1900's, and is as old as many modern martial arts styles and older than some, including TKD, Okinawan Karate, modern Judo, Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, yang style Tai Chi, Chen style Tai Chi, San Shou... and the list goes on.

Taijiquan is A LOT older. San Shou isn't traditional.

 

[K-man]

First, BJJ is a traditional martial art. It has roots in traditional japanese styles that are shared with many other modern styles. As a distinct, unique style, it was developed in the early 1900's, and is as old as many modern martial arts styles and older than some, including TKD, Okinawan Karate, modern Judo, Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, yang style Tai Chi, Chen style Tai Chi, San Shou... and the list goes on..

Mmm! A bit of history here. Certainly BJJ has been around since about 1914 and was refined by the Gracie family in particular and, yes, it is older than TKD. If you are going back and equating BJJ to traditional jujutsu then yes it is as old but if you are talking of specifically BJJ then it. Is not as old as Okinawan Karate which began centuries ago and was refined by people like Matsumura in the early to mid 1800s and Higaonna about 1800. Yang style tai chi was early 1800s, Chen style, considerably older. Even Judo started back in the 1880s.

So let's just say BJJ has been around for a long time. Now, here is the interesting part. If, as you claim, BJJ is a TMA, and I am prepared to accept that, then someone here has been actually arguing against himself.
:hmm:

 

[Steve]

Oh, a comment taking the piss, great thread introduction. Really, was there any need for that?

What does "taking the piss" mean?

Taijiquan is A LOT older. San Shou isn't traditional.

Yang style tai chi is from the mid-1800s. Right? I wouldn't call that "A LOT" older. This perpetual need to exaggerate is exactly what I was talking about.

Point being that most modern styles, whether traditional or not, are relatively young, certainly younger than most realize. And every style, whether traditional or not, has deeper roots. Whether it's karate, tai chi, TKD, fencing, wrestling or whatever, the way WE do it isn't the way it was done centuries ago. The best known form of kung fu is Wing Chun and the form most people train today goes back to Ip Man who died in 1972.

Also, every style has a culture. Every style has traditions. And every style trains and spars with rules. If you don't think you are training with rules as rigid as any sport style, you are mistaken. Your rules are simply different, just as your techniques are different.

 

[Steve]

Mmm! A bit of history here. Certainly BJJ has been around since about 1914 and was refined by the Gracie family in particular and, yes, it is older than TKD. If you are going back and equating BJJ to traditional jujutsu then yes it is as old but if you are talking of specifically BJJ then it. Is not as old as Okinawan Karate which began centuries ago and was refined by people like Matsumura in the early to mid 1800s and Higaonna about 1800. Yang style tai chi was early 1800s, Chen style, considerably older. Even Judo started back in the 1880s.

So let's just say BJJ has been around for a long time. Now, here is the interesting part. If, as you claim, BJJ is a TMA, and I am prepared to accept that, then someone here has been actually arguing against himself.
:hmm:

Modern Judo (post WWII) and BJJ are cousins, both derived from the judo/jujutsu taught in Japan in the late 1800s/early 1900s. BJJ is, as they say, basically just judo.

But, Judo itself went through some pretty significant revisions and continues to evolve today. Once again, the point being that the way we train today isn't the way they trained even 100 years ago. And the only thing wrong with this, in my opinion, is when people don't acknowledge it.

For whether it's "traditional" or not, I guess that depends upon how you define "TMA." My position, if anything, is that I think the distinction is meaningless.

 

[Steve]

Mmm! A bit of history here. Certainly BJJ has been around since about 1914 and was refined by the Gracie family in particular and, yes, it is older than TKD. If you are going back and equating BJJ to traditional jujutsu then yes it is as old but if you are talking of specifically BJJ then it. Is not as old as Okinawan Karate which began centuries ago and was refined by people like Matsumura in the early to mid 1800s and Higaonna about 1800. Yang style tai chi was early 1800s, Chen style, considerably older. Even Judo started back in the 1880s.

So let's just say BJJ has been around for a long time. Now, here is the interesting part. If, as you claim, BJJ is a TMA, and I am prepared to accept that, then someone here has been actually arguing against himself.
:hmm:

FWIW, Isshinryu Karate was "founded" in the 1950s. Kyokushin Karate was "founded" in the 1960s. Wado ryu karate in the 1930s. Shorin Ryu also in the 1930s.

Now, I'm not saying that they were invented from nothing at those times. I am saying that these modern styles are derived from older styles, and that this is not really at all different than the history of modern TKD, Judo, BJJ or any other art.

 

[Dinkydoo]

What does "taking the piss" mean?

Making fun of.

Your opening statement in this thread was "making fun of" some TMAs.

Yang style tai chi is from the mid-1800s. Right? I wouldn't call that "A LOT" older. This perpetual need to exaggerate is exactly what I was talking about.

Yang style is, yes, but Taijiquan in general can be traced to a couple of hundred years prior to that. Yang is a derivative of original Taijiquan; its a great style.

Point being that most modern styles, whether traditional or not, are relatively young

Depends on your understanding if the art, I guess.

every style, whether traditional or not, has deeper roots.

True.

Whether it's karate, tai chi, TKD, fencing, wrestling or whatever, the way WE do it isn't the way it was done centuries ago.

Traditional arts taught by good schools IMO try to pass on the legacy and teaching methods of those who came before them. Styles do evolve but we need to remember that the people who developed Kung Fu (in particular) trained all day, most days.

The best known form of kung fu is Wing Chun and the form most people train today goes back to Ip Man who died in 1972.

Yip Man is probably the most well known teacher of the style to teach to the public (partially due to the movies) but the style's origins can be verified way further back than that.

Also, every style has a culture. Every style has traditions. And every style trains and spars with rules. If you don't think you are training with rules as rigid as any sport style, you are mistaken. Your rules are simply different, just as your techniques are different.

No, we don't have "rules" but we do respect that you can't strike the groin, knee, elbow, throat, temple with much power before causing injury. So, instead of completely ignoring those striking points (like all competition styles do) we practice striking them within sets and against padded resistance during training (positioned appropriately, of course).

 

[K-man]

FWIW, Isshinryu Karate was "founded" in the 1950s. Kyokushin Karate was "founded" in the 1960s. Wado ryu karate in the 1930s. Shorin Ryu also in the 1930s.

Now, I'm not saying that they were invented from nothing at those times. I am saying that these modern styles are derived from older styles, and that this is not really at all different than the history of modern TKD, Judo, BJJ or any other art.

Not wanting to get too involved in this but you did specify 'Okinawan' karate.

First, BJJ is a traditional martial art. It has roots in traditional japanese styles that are shared with many other modern styles. As a distinct, unique style, it was developed in the early 1900's, and is as old as many modern martial arts styles and older than some, including TKD, Okinawan Karate, modern Judo, Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, yang style Tai Chi, Chen style Tai Chi, San Shou... and the list goes on.

Kyokushin and Wado are Japanese styles. Isshin Ryu is the odd man out because it is a modern form now officially recognised in Okinawa as a traditional form along with Goju Ryu, Shorin Ryu and Uechi Ryu. FWIW, Goju Ryu and Shorin Ryu were 'named' in the 1930s, not founded. Prior to that most places trained without a label.
:asian:

 

[Steve]

Making fun of.
Your opening statement in this thread was "making fun of" some TMAs.

Not intended to make fun of anyone. The point was that people train for a lot of reasons, and if you are happy with your training, have fun. I don't personally care what you do, regardless of how odd it may look to me.

No, we don't have "rules" but we do respect that you can't strike the groin, knee, elbow, throat, temple with much power before causing injury. So, instead of completely ignoring those striking points (like all competition styles do) we practice striking them within sets and against padded resistance during training (positioned appropriately, of course).

Of course you have rules, whether you call them something else or not. Unless you routinely destroy joints or kill people in your training, you train under a set of rules. Your rules are different than other styles rules. Your focus is different, and so your ruleset is different. I think that there is some confusion in this thread about the actual definition of the term "rule."

 

[Steve]

Not wanting to get too involved in this but you did specify 'Okinawan' karate.



Kyokushin and Wado are Japanese styles. Isshin Ryu is the odd man out because it is a modern form now officially recognised in Okinawa as a traditional form along with Goju Ryu, Shorin Ryu and Uechi Ryu. FWIW, Goju Ryu and Shorin Ryu were 'named' in the 1930s, not founded. Prior to that most places trained without a label.
:asian:

I get what you're saying and appreciate the comments. Do you think that if I walk into a modern Goju Ryu school, I will train exactly as they trained even 100 years ago? I don't believe so.

 

[Hanzou]

I think Judo supplanted classical Jujutsu in Japan because it could easily be transformed into a sport and thus became more popular.

Also because Judo defeated classical Jujitsu schools in 1886.

http://www.usjjf.org/articles/JuJitsuP3.htm

Judo's training methods proved to be superior to the training methods of classical Jujitsu.

 

[K-man]

I get what you're saying and appreciate the comments. Do you think that if I walk into a modern Goju Ryu school, I will train exactly as they trained even 100 years ago? I don't believe so.

Hopefully, if you come to my school the answer would be yes. But in fairness, I don't teach what you see in most schools. The dog I have in this fight is really about how you define 'traditional'. If Hanzou had been less rigid in his definitions I could have agreed with what he was saying, wrt karate. That is exactly why I left the modern Japanese Goju system for the traditional Okinawan Goju practice some time back. That's not bagging the Japanese style, that's fine for what most people seem to want, and for those who wish to compete in tournaments.
:asian:

 

[Dinkydoo]

Not intended to make fun of anyone. The point was that people train for a lot of reasons, and if you are happy with your training, have fun. I don't personally care what you do, regardless of how odd it may look to me.

You said:

first, I just want to be on record as saying that I don't really care what anyone does for fun. It seems like some misconceptions are being thrown around regarding BJJ, so I'll try to clear some of that up.

If you want to train in Tai Chi, Karate or flying monkey soup style, I don't care. Have fun. Knock yourself out.

That is really disrespectful,

I mean, if I was training in a causal pastime like 'pogo stick', it might be more acceptable, but I'm training in a martial art here guys FFS, lets leave our arrogance out of the discussion.

Of course you have rules, whether you call them something else or not. Unless you routinely destroy joints or kill people in your training, you train under a set of rules. Your rules are different than other styles rules. Your focus is different, and so your ruleset is different. I think that there is some confusion in this thread about the actual definition of the term "rule."

Just because we don't routinely destroy joints or bollocks doesn't mean that we don't train to do so. We literally have several sections of our set forms that end up in a groin, throat or temple strike, and you literally do not train to hit in that region of the body - presumably because you can't go "full force" in training. THAT is what we are defining as ''rules" within styles here.

 

[Koshiki]

Of course you have rules, whether you call them something else or not. Unless you routinely destroy joints or kill people in your training, you train under a set of rules. Your rules are different than other styles rules. Your focus is different, and so your ruleset is different. I think that there is some confusion in this thread about the actual definition of the term "rule."

Exactly. No rules, you quickly run out of training partners. I think what he was getting at was no specific rules, aside from, "try not to break each other." More of a guideline, than a code of rules, really. It's all the same, really.

Sport MA says, "don't do this, this, and this," and thereby avoids most really awful injuries. Specific rules/guidelines.

Self Defense MA says, "Do whatever you want, but use control and judgement," and thereby avoids most really awful injuries. General rule/guideline.

I think it's fair then, to say that Sports have rules, and self-defense based training has guidelines. But they're both really the same thing. There's also a great deal of overlap between what is sport and what is self-defense. They're almost the same thing, in many cases. Which is why arguing that one or the other is the more effective becomes so silly...

 

[Steve]

You said:



That is really disrespectful,

I mean, if I was training in a causal pastime like 'pogo stick', it might be more acceptable, but I'm training in a martial art here guys FFS, lets leave our arrogance out of the discussion.

I have already explained that it was not intended to be disrespectful. You've made it clear that you took offense. I think I've made it clear that no offense was intended. I'm not sure what you're looking for here other than to bicker.

Funny aside (funny to me, at least). I have always found the use of the royal "we" a little overbearing, unless you're the Queen. That you used it when discussing arrogance made me chuckle. So, "we" will try to keep "our" arrogance out of it, if "we" will.

Just because we don't routinely destroy joints or bollocks doesn't mean that we don't train to do so.

No, but it does clearly mean that you train under a set of rules.

We literally have several sections of our set forms that end up in a groin, throat or temple strike, and you literally do not train to hit in that region of the body - presumably because you can't go "full force" in training. THAT is what we are defining as ''rules" within styles here.

The first definition of the term "rule" in the Oxford dictionary pretty much lays it out: one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

The rules you train under are different from the rules that I train under, but that you train with rules is really not in question. You do. Everyone does, otherwise everyone would only train once and then be dead or permanently maimed. In order to make training safe, there are rules.