MMA VS Traditional Martial Arts - article from Fox Baguazhang

[drop bear]

Sez who?

Most MMA fighters I see these days aren't doing it so that they can win a "streetfight" against 20 Katana wielding Ninjas. They're doing it to compete, to test themselves against each other. The ones who are concerned about "Self Defense" go get a gun and/or other weapons & training for them.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Well I assume it is kind of the premis of the article.

So I think you will find mmaers who are training to compete,training for ninjas and training for fun.

And bare in mind ninjas can catch bullets so some people still need the hand to hand aspect of the self defence.

 

[drop bear]

"Manufacture"?!?!?! What the heck? It's not "manufactured" anything. It's a different reason. Not everyone paints a picture hoping to be Picasso. Some people just do it because they like to paint. <sheesh>

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

When you attribute a style to a training mindset like what was done you are manufacturing a difference. I train mma for competition. You train krav for self defence. He trains akido for personal development.

And we are applying this idea that there is only one result you can a achieve depending on the martial art you do.

That is different to everybody making their own personal choice regarding what they want to get out of what they do.

 

[K-man]

I'm sorry, but, um... no. This mindset which he is referring to is a decade out of date. While there are still some who hold this, most "MMA supporters" don't start from that perspective any longer. Heck, a great GREAT many of them don't give a fat fiddler's fart about "TMA" and would give you a blank stare if you uttered the letters in their presence. Very many of them aren't highly interested in "Self Defense" or "Street Fighting" or whatever else that the author thinks they are. They're there to compete in a manly smackdown and if they need to do some "Self Defense" they slap leather and haul out the hog-leg.

OK. I can except that it is only some. That is also my experience although outside of martial art forums I haven't come across it at all.

"Strictly?" Bullcrap. If that were true, none of them would end with "Do" or have Zen-anything or Omoto-etc. or any other Philosophy in them. There's plenty of evidence that many TMA's were intended to cover elements of exercise and general health. Plainly speaking, the author's claim here is over-reaching and easily refuted.

I think this depends on the frame of reference. I may have read the blog wrong and haven't time just now to go back, but I thought it was from a an historical perspective well before '-do' became commonplace. I might have thought TMAs in the context of Asia, were not usually for exercise or general health. I would have thought that was more a 20th century development.

But the simple fact is that, in today's world of open-borders, open-concepts, and "open source," you simply cannot depend on secret techniques or secret training. If you can manage to keep and hold a secret, then, you can have an edge, just as with (as some claim) the Italians had with their super-secret Punta Lugna (Lunge Thrust) for the Rapier, yet that cat got out of the bad pretty darn quick. Once someone has seen it, today, everyone has seen it. No chance of keeping it a secret.

No issue with tat at all. I took it again that it was a comment on the historical nature of the CMAs.

Again, over-reach. There have been many martial arts which had a purely sporting basis, and many which had sporting basis which were extended to "combat." Glima, 19th Century Boxing, and Back-Hold, for instance, are examples. There were arts which were intended to promote espirit de corps for the fighting man, such as Hutton's Great Stick method, and arts which grew from non-lethal training systems for other arts, such as Singlestick and Gatka. There are martial arts which grew to have strictly entertainment and performance roles, such as Tahtib. There are a vast number of martial arts permutations which are not covered in the author's over-reaching and over-narrow pronouncement.

Now we are way outside of the context of the article.

It pains me that the author has made so many false assumptions about the "other" side of his argument, and about martial arts in general. It pains me that the author is recycling an argument that reached its zenith in the 90's as if it's somehow new and insightful.

Maybe. I didn't take 'martial arts in general' outside of what I thought the article was about.

And it's still another set of bull-crap statements. We are NOT all on the same blasted path! I don't study Bowie Knife for "survival" or for "combat." I study it because it's FUN and because it's a part of my cultural heritage, and a martial arts part at that. I fully expect to never be in a Bowie Knife duel, but I approach my training with as much historic validity and realism as I can safely muster. How many kenjutsu exponents realistically expect to be in a sword duel? If they do, then, yes, they're probably living in a fantasy world. By the same token, if an outside observer seriously believes that they're living in a fantasy world because he thinks they really expect to in a sword duel, then it is he who is living in a fantasy world; one of foolish assumption. So, no, we ain't all on the same durn path. Further MMA may or may not exist without the traditional arts. Men have always been wanting to test themselves against each other for fun, bragging rights, money, and access to sex. "Sporting" events similar to MMA have existed in many other cultures which had no contact with Asian "TMA" (or even Asia), many of which predate anything we currently think of as TMA. So while the modern UFC and derivatives could be said to be the progeny of TMA (JuJutsu -> Judo -> BJJ), the claim is still of limited merit. Heck, at least three of the original UFC 1 competitors weren't using what we think of as TMA!

I don't think this is what the article was about at all.

Seriously, this whole MMA vs TMA argument is so old that it's positively decrepit and the author has made so many mistaken base assumptions that it was inevitable that his conclusion would be tainted.

I'll re read with different eyes.

Now if he would have just wrote, "we all do different martial arts for different reasons; live and let live." then it'd be darn hard to argue with it. But that makes a boring blog post. The problem is, the topic is dated and his assumptions are poor so it's a boring blog post anyway. FAIL.

So I'm assuming you don't agree with what he has written.

 

[lklawson]

When you attribute a style to a training mindset like what was done you are manufacturing a difference. I train mma for competition. You train krav for self defence. He trains akido for personal development.

I don't do Krav (I don't even "like" most Krav that I've seen because I don't think it usually provides the service it claims to - but that's a different discussion). But I get your point and, for this one anyway, I generally agree.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

So I'm assuming you don't agree with what he has written.

Nope, not a bit. Reading his blog was like being transported back 15 years to NNTP rec.martial-arts

No, I'm not joking even the least little bit. His entire post could have been lifted directly from the pages of circa-2000 rma.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[senseidave2005]

While surely you're right that he wasn't asserting that lack of fitness is a self defense "thing," his actual point was confusing. It seemed to be a slightly confusing cause and effect argument about fitness level, athleticism and MMA vs TMA, related to how they prepare. The idea being that MMA guys intend to fight for three rounds, while TMA guys intend to fight no longer than 15-30 seconds.

He suggested that the mental approach is different. I personally agree, but would suggest that preparing to fight for only 15 to 30 seconds just sounds like a terrible idea when the stakes could be as high as life or death. Mental approach-wise, I do know that the approach in MMA is that the fight should never be harder than the training. The saying is, "Train hard; fight easy." And the mentality of gameness is that you will never give up. You presume your opponent has every advantage over you, and so the only thing you can control is preparation. Your opponent might have more technique, but he'll never outwork you. That's a level of mental toughness that's going to be hard to beat.

Whereas training with the idea that a fight should only last 15 to 30, if you do it right, sets you up to fail. What do you do if the fight goes on for a minute? 5 minutes? 10? Do you give up? Mentally, if the fight for your life is protracted, and you have only trained to fight for 30 seconds, I'd say you may already have given up.

He also seems to conflate a high degree of fitness and athleticism to MMAists but seems to sell TMA guys short. Personally, I've seen some kung fu guys who are just monsters (physically).

I think Drop Bear was being a little flippant, but he's reacting to a position that seems difficult to support.

I would like to thank those who chose to read what was written. I would also agree to prepare for a 15-30 second fight would be ludicrous. To allow a fight for your life to continue that long would tell me that one should change strategy due to the fact that what your doing isn't working so change gears. I also stated that my oersonal fitness level was not to the level of a competitive fighter... when training for grading I have always encouraged the students to up their fame to the training over prepares them for the challenge. Otherwise they beat themselves. That's All. I will crawl back under my rock now for a few more years.

 

[drop bear]

I would like to thank those who chose to read what was written. I would also agree to prepare for a 15-30 second fight would be ludicrous. To allow a fight for your life to continue that long would tell me that one should change strategy due to the fact that what your doing isn't working so change gears. I also stated that my oersonal fitness level was not to the level of a competitive fighter... when training for grading I have always encouraged the students to up their fame to the training over prepares them for the challenge. Otherwise they beat themselves. That's All. I will crawl back under my rock now for a few more years.

I am interested to know what goes on in your head when a fight hits that 30 second mark. And you start to worry that it should be over by then.

 

[Steve]

I would like to thank those who chose to read what was written. I would also agree to prepare for a 15-30 second fight would be ludicrous. To allow a fight for your life to continue that long would tell me that one should change strategy due to the fact that what your doing isn't working so change gears. I also stated that my oersonal fitness level was not to the level of a competitive fighter... when training for grading I have always encouraged the students to up their fame to the training over prepares them for the challenge. Otherwise they beat themselves. That's All. I will crawl back under my rock now for a few more years.

My intent wasn't to drive you away, and I'm really sorry if that's how it came across.

What you've said above makes a lot more sense to me. It's the difference between strategy and tactics. The strategy/plan is to prepare for a fight that is as long as necessary. Tactically, you would work in the moment to keep the fight as short as possible. If that makes sense.

 

[senseidave2005]

I am interested to know what goes on in your head when a fight hits that 30 second mark. And you start to worry that it should be over by then.

Drop bear, you seem to be a rather interesting character, and I hope that your skills match your ability to cause irritation, you ask questions as if your only wish is to aggrivate people into saying "fine you win". I have trained a long time and feel confident that should I ever be in that situation again the last thing I will do is worry.. May you and yours go forth and multiply. For it is with great pleasure I can say I dont know you and shall with gods grace never have to meet you for you are a not so rare breed that I would prefer not to have in my life.

 

[drop bear]

Drop bear, you seem to be a rather interesting character, and I hope that your skills match your ability to cause irritation, you ask questions as if your only wish is to aggrivate people into saying "fine you win". I have trained a long time and feel confident that should I ever be in that situation again the last thing I will do is worry.. May you and yours go forth and multiply. For it is with great pleasure I can say I dont know you and shall with gods grace never have to meet you for you are a not so rare breed that I would prefer not to have in my life.

As an oyster needs aggravation to make a pearl. So do our pearls of wisdom need aggravation to ensure that they have merit.

 

[drop bear]

Ok. Mabye trying to engage a persons mind is sometimes the wrong way to go. So to explain in the simplest terms why you are wrong.

A fight that lasts a few seconds is reliant on the person you are fighting being unable to defend your attacks. Or unable to wear your attacks. This mostly happens in the street because most people cant fight.

Now a person who you hit and collapses is a best case scenario. And I hope everyone who has to defend themselves fights that sort of person.

But.

Some people can fight and through no fault of your own you are going to have to take longer finishing them and will have a tougher time of it.

So to prepare for a fight it is better to prepare for a long fight rather than a short one because it is better for a fight to be easier than you expect than harder.

When you see a ring fight and think that it goes on too long. This is more due to both fighters being kind of evenly matched in ability and weight. And less to do with some sort of rule set preventing people from getting finished quickly.

If you are fundamentally better than the guy you are fighting you can finish a fight quickly in 16 ounce gloves.

So this street fight fast finish because you are using some sort technique superior to punching people is not real.

 

[drop bear]

On top of this. It is incredibly risky to try to finish a fight early on a guy you have no idea about and where the penalty for loosing is so great.

Because to do this you have to engage in the sort of trade off that allows a quality fighter to trade back. When if you play a bit safe and a bit cautious you will still score hits that will finish a crap guy while not exposing yourself to the counters of a good one.

 

[drop bear]

So the street fighting fast fight vs the boxing slow fight.

If you catch the guy you can still end them quick. There are not really 2 different scenarios here.

I am using boxing because they have the biggest gloves and the least distractions just to show it can get done fast with pretty much as much stacked up against you as you can.

So again we can find parallels to self defence training and sport training.

 

[RTKDCMB]

So this street fight fast finish because you are using some sort technique superior to punching people is not real.

 

[drop bear]

That is not superior to punching people.

 

[RTKDCMB]

That is not superior to punching people.

Really? One strike in my video versus how many strikes in yours?

 

[drop bear]

Really? One strike in my video versus how many strikes in yours?

Yes really. One strike pretty much did the job there.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Yes really. One strike pretty much did the job there.

But it wasn't the first one he threw was it?

 

[ShotoNoob]

Let me fix that for you:

Ground fighting as a whole was neglected by some Judo practitioners for decades in favor of throwing techniques. So much so that some Judo black belts train in Bjj to round out their style.

I
This is precisely the point that causes blog discussions, and the same to go on & on & on, over & over & over. Instead of coming to a reasoned conclusion.
|
That is... confusing the conventions of how a particular martial art is practiced or presented popularly versus the actual conceptual foundations and principle maxims underpinning & defining that martial art.
|
I'm no expert in Judo but have observed exactly what you have said. Whether this arose out of the original Judo curriculum as it was trained or came about later, I do not know.
|
Again, no real experience training BJJ, yet it is apparent from observing it's practice that the Gracies' put together a more seamless system of grappling compared to how Judo that I've experienced has been presented & practiced.
|
So are the 'holes' in Judo in the curriculum's structure, or in the popular convention on how it has come to be practiced? I concur with Tony D. that convention of Judo training often has not been representative of the potential, or of the complete principles in the art.

 

[ShotoNoob]

Actually, I think it's your oversimplification here that doesn't make sense. The fact that MMA is a very controlled, and highly artificial environment, also reduces the numbers of variables that it is correctly and sufficently assessing. Yes, early MMA proved clearly that most traditional martial artists won't do very well against expert grapplers with a certain gameplan, in a one-on-one, unarmed duel type of situation. However, generalizing from that to how they would perform in a more typical self defense situation or street encounter, against the kind of opponents that one are most likely to meet there, and with all the added variables and posibilities of that kind of situation, is shoddy methodology at best.

|
IMO, you've really thought through the subject and are much more familiar with MMA than I. Yet, in terms of coming to reasoned conclusions, here's where I'll step in by isolating out just one block of your post. I'll abstract out the particular sentence.
|
I can't see why anyone would not agree with your first sentence. Perfectly stated. I took out the last sentence because I want to tie down the issue before I would move to the changed environment. To get at the "truth."

Yes, early MMA proved clearly that most traditional martial artists won't do very well against expert grapplers with a certain gameplan, in a one-on-one, unarmed duel type of situation.

|
By my thinking, what the success of the Gracies proved in early MMA has to be qualified by the nature of the sample of "traditional" martial artists that the Gracie's faced. Two questions: ONE, were those martial artists that labeled themselves "traditional," had they achieved the level of expertise in traditional martial arts that say an acknowledged expert here, K-MAN, has? IOW, what was the efficacy of their traditional martial arts training? OR--Were they just good kickboxers who took TMA lessons and got belts in a TMA style? TWO, were the early UFC matches where the Gracies had all this stupendous success, entirely legitimate or was there a good dose of promotion?
|
In a sense, my second question (TWO) points to your first sentence where you describe the Octagon as an artificial environment. I bring one aspect of that artificiality which then affects any conclusions drawn from MMA stats.
|
On question ONE, the idea is to bring in Tony D's perspective in his Judo post, and one that has been raised in other T.'s. In terms of labeling early UFC fighters (or any MMA competitor claiming to be TMA based), how much, to what degree had their training been determined by largely following conventional training for competition in that style, as opposed to the training presented across the entire spectrum of that TMA style's curriculum?
|
If so-called TMA practitioners are neglecting a certain aspect of the curriculum as Tony D. described for Judo, then this calls into question the potency of Gracie BJJ, should Gracie BJJ actually go against those competently training the TMA curriculum (by Tony D., Judo) as it was proposed & designed by the originating Masters. A quality of training issue....