MMA vs TMA

[Steve]

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...

I appreciate the comments, but I think I'd say that self defense schools have rules as strict and well defined as any sport school. When you train full contact to the groin, do you wear a cup? Do you wear padding of some kind.

You mention that you use control when sparring. Is there a time when it's okay to spar without control?

When you are training a technique that you know is dangerous to a particular joint, do you ever break the joint? Is there ever a time when it's okay to break a training partner's wrist?

Those are rules.

What I think you guys are getting hung up with is that some styles have created a formalized, competitive ruleset and some have not. But rules are rules.

 

[Hanzou]

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...

Effectiveness comes down to training methods.

Prime example;

Bad training methods.

 

[Dinkydoo]

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.

I could give you the whole logical reasoning why I found it disrespectful and why you might find it disrespectful if the shoe was on the other foot, but what's the point. You were purposefully making fun of certain TMAs and you know it.

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

I don't believe I referred to myself in the tense of the 'royal' "we".

...and I thought I was the one supposed to be looking for an argument....jeez.

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

So you do not differentiate between training how to use a technique, breaking someone's neck, and not actually having that technique within your curriculum....?

Ok, well, you're doing a grand job of representing Hanzou's side of the argument (so much so that I almost miss him) but I think I'll now bow out and leave you to discuss this amongst yourselves.

 

[Steve]

I could give you the whole logical reasoning why I found it disrespectful and why you might find it disrespectful if the shoe was on the other foot, but what's the point. You were purposefully making fun of certain TMAs and you know it.

Okay. Now you're presuming to tell me what I meant, and further, you're saying I was lying when I said I didn't mean offense. Who's really being disrespectful here?

My recommendation to you is to drop it. Every response you make is more extreme than the last. I don't know you and you don't know me, so if the shoe were on the other foot, I would take you at your word. Taking people at their word is pretty important around here because misunderstandings happen ALL THE TIME. It takes a thick skin and a willingness to accept that what someone wrote and what you read aren't always the same thing. Misunderstandings are routine. I'm not sure why you're carrying on about this.

So you do not differentiate between training how to use a technique, breaking someone's neck, and not actually having that technique within your curriculum....?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm pretty sure I differentiate between these things, but I'm not following you on what this has to do with whether you train under a rule set.

Ok, well, you're doing a grand job of representing Hanzou's side of the argument (so much so that I almost miss him) but I think I'll now bow out and leave you to discuss this amongst yourselves.

There's part of the problem. I have nothing against Hanzou (or you or anyone else in the thread) and I'm not trying to represent him.

 

[jks9199]

Whoa.... people have disagreed pretty politely so far. Let's keep it that way before someone uninvolved has to take action, OK?

 

[RTKDCMB]

How old an art is has no bearing on how traditional it is.

 

[Dirty Dog]

How old an art is has no bearing on how traditional it is.

Really? So in your mind, Ameri Do Te and Rex Kwan Do are as much traditional martial arts as, say, one of the Koryu arts?

Huh. Who'd a thunk it...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

[K-man]

How old an art is has no bearing on how traditional it is.

traditional
adjective
* existing in or as part of a tradition; long-established:
the traditional festivities of the Church year
* produced, done, or used in accordance with tradition:
a traditional fish soup
*habitually done, used, or found:
the traditional drinks in the clubhouse
(of a person or group) adhering to tradition, or to a particular tradition:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/traditional

Respectfully, I do think the age of an art is important within the context of this discussion.
:asian:

 

[RTKDCMB]

Ameri Do Te and Rex Kwan Do

So if they were conceived and practiced 200 years ago they would be traditional (and exist)?

A traditional art is defined in how it is practiced not how old it is. If two arts are conceived at exactly the same time and one is practiced by following traditions and one is not then you cannot distinguish them based on their age. Simple logic really.

 

[K-man]

So if they were conceived and practiced 200 years ago they would be traditional?

A traditional art is defined in how it is practiced not how old it is. If two arts are conceived at exactly the same time and one is practiced by following traditions and one is not then you cannot distinguish them based on their age. Simple logic really.

To a certain extent you are right. In Okinawa only four forms of karate are recognised as 'traditional'. Three of them are about one hundred years old and Isshin Ryu is only about sixty. Issin Ryu has only been accorded that recognition in the past few years. The criteria is that it is practised as it was when it started. So any style that started two hundred years ago would need to be principally the same now as it was then to be regarded as traditional.

But your distinction about age is not strictly true. If one follows tradition and one does not, only one is traditional, regardless of age. However, if these arts were only ten years old and in the same general grouping of arts a hundred years older, it would be hard to call either of them 'traditional' regardless as to how they are practised.

It it really is like the proverbial question. How long is a piece of string? If an art develops from another art and continues to be practised in the same manner over a period of time, at what stage is it regarded as traditional?
:asian:

 

[Hanzou]

How old an art is has no bearing on how traditional it is.

My question is why would you train in a traditional method in the first place? I saw a program where two Americans went to Japan to learn the history of Jujitsu and Judo, and practiced at a classical jujitsu dojo where they had to practice break falling and getting thrown onto hard wooden floors. What's the purpose of that? To continue a method of training that was proven ineffective over a century ago by the founder of Judo?

When I see people practice those old arts, they just remind me of those people at the renaissance fairs who wear knight armor and swing around broadswords and maces.

 

[RTKDCMB]

How long is a piece of string?

About that long.

 

[RTKDCMB]

My question is why would you train in a traditional method in the first place?

Traditional methods become traditional because they work, otherwise they would not be around long enough to be traditional.

I saw a program where two Americans went to Japan to learn the history of Jujitsu and Judo, and practiced at a classical jujitsu dojo where they had to practice break falling and getting thrown onto hard wooden floors. What's the purpose of that?

The purpose is to learn how to break fall properly on a real surface where it is going to hurt a bit (you seem to like realism in training don't you?) There is not likely going to be a mat under you when you get thrown around in the street. When I did Hapkido for a while we had to do all our rolls and breakfalls on hard wooden floors, you soon learn to do it properly.

To continue a method of training that was proven ineffective over a century ago by the founder of Judo?

Only in your narrow mind. Go up to a classical jujitsu guy and ask him how effective you think his art is.

When I see people practice those old arts, they just remind me of those people at the renaissance fairs who wear knight armor and swing around broadswords and maces.

When I see BJJ I think of this:

I am sure you see it like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0sWs7-Gkg0&

 

[Hanzou]

Traditional methods become traditional because they work, otherwise they would not be around long enough to be traditional.

Traditional methods should only remain in place until a better method comes along. Judo, Aikido, and Bjj are better methods of training classical Jujitsu.

The purpose is to learn how to break fall properly on a real surface where it is going to hurt a bit (you seem to like realism in training don't you?) There is not likely going to be a mat under you when you get thrown around in the street. When I did Hapkido for a while we had to do all our rolls and breakfalls on hard wooden floors, you soon learn to do it properly.

And that's a pretty dumb way to train, because it leads to injury, or worse. Years of getting thrown to the mat will toughen you up just fine for landing on a harder surface. Again, Kano proved this over a century ago. People trying to replicate nonsense from old, disproven methods of training are simply thinking in a backwards fashion.

Only in your narrow mind. Go up to a classical jujitsu guy and ask him how effective you think his art is.

LoL! I've rolled with plenty of classical JJ guys, even as a white belt. Lets just say it didn't go well for the classical JJ guys, because they're pretty bad at takedown defense, and have difficulty getting out of simple holds and locks on the ground. They simply lack the fluidity that randori from Judo and BJj develops.

When I see BJJ I think of this:

I am sure you see it like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0sWs7-Gkg0&

LoL! That Simpsons vid was pretty funny. I got a big kick out of it.

 

[Kframe]

Yet one more reason I grow to hate bjj as the years go by.. The compete arrogance of a lot of its practitioners.. I quit mma/bjj because of the very ego you present Hanzou. Not everyone wants to be told everyday to get the sand out of there lady parts(even if your a guy... ) nor do I want to deal with the constant need to dominate. Ego is why I HATE mma anymore.

I don't see that level of arrogance in tma's. Hence, why if on the street you take me down, ill carve you up. Simple.

 

[Dirty Dog]

So if they were conceived and practiced 200 years ago they would be traditional (and exist)?

A traditional art is defined in how it is practiced not how old it is. If two arts are conceived at exactly the same time and one is practiced by following traditions and one is not then you cannot distinguish them based on their age. Simple logic really.

An art that is 6 months old hasn't had time to develop traditions.
Simple logic, really.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

[RTKDCMB]

An art that is 6 months old hasn't had time to develop traditions.
Simple logic, really.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

And how long does it take to develop traditions?

 

[RTKDCMB]

Traditional methods should only remain in place until a better method comes along. Judo, Aikido, and Bjj are better methods of training classical Jujitsu.

People always think they have found something better, people think a lot of things.

And that's a pretty dumb way to train, because it leads to injury, or worse.

I turned out fine, the people who trained me turned out fine, and the people who trained them.

Again, Kano proved this over a century ago. People trying to replicate nonsense from old, disproven methods of training are simply thinking in a backwards fashion.

Again only in your narrow mind.

LoL! I've rolled with plenty of classical JJ guys, even as a white belt. Lets just say it didn't go well for the classical JJ guys, because they're pretty bad at takedown defense, and have difficulty getting out of simple holds and locks on the ground. They simply lack the fluidity that randori from Judo and BJj develops.

Without seeing their performance and knowing what and how they trained, their experience and the format of the rolling, means absolutely nothing. I have sparred with former kickboxers and had no trouble at all defending against them, still means nothing.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Bad training methods.

Finally something we can totally agree on 100%.

 

[RTKDCMB]

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.

Taken from the web page:

In 1886?

According to Koizumi Gunji, the final score was nine victories and one draw for the Kodokan. Like the dates of the event mentioned above, this figure is also subject to some variation depending on the sources used. That the Kodokan was an overwhelming victor is beyond dispute.

In 1888;

The rules also favored the Judo men. There seems to have been no time limit. The use of striking and kicking techniques known as atemi-waza and joint techniques called kansetsu-waza were prohibited, thereby drastically limiting the Jujitsu men. Clean throws indicated victory, and this, too, must have placed the Kodokan people at an advantage.

Were they the same rules? The article does not say.

And

Can these tournaments really be called Kodokan Judo against Jujitsu; or were they merely Jujitsu matches where Kano had been able to secure the help of stronger practitioners? And somewhat more curious, why didn't Kano personally take part in any of the many bouts?

So it doesn't actually prove anything.