OMG a balanced video on MMA vs TMA?!?!?!?!?!

[JowGaWolf]

Only sort of. We set ourselves up with these lofty goals and in chasing them miss what is going on around us.

So I may not be training for combat but I can punch a guy so hard he pees himself.

I think to a certain degree martial arts is about these little goals that then almost incidentally become those larger ones.

I can see this. TMA often does have some lofty goals. I try to keep mine simple. Benefit form the training (including the mental, personal improvement, and non fight related stuff), learn how to use the techniques for self-defense, and be conditioned enough (mentally and physically) to make it through a physical attack. To be able to punch a guy so hard he pees is combat skill enough. That means you have the skills to punch someone who doesn't want to be punched (aka moving and not trying to give you a clean shot). If you can hit a moving target, then that's good enough. We have all seen "Grandmasters" who have failed even at this.

 

[lklawson]

Great another one.....who cares if it's balanced why does it even matter. Why does this vs nonsense have to exist...someone enjoys tma more then great, someone enjoys mma more then great. People like different things. Let everyone just get on with their own thing and focus on your life.

Heretic! The rules are very clear; you must pick one side or the other and praise it & defend it to the end while vilifying and decrying the other for pure, unadulterated, evil. What are you, a Chevy/Pepsi fan?

Where's my torch and pitchfork?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Headhunter]

Heretic! The rules are very clear; you must pick one side or the other and praise it & defend it to the end while vilifying and decrying the other for pure, unadulterated, evil. What are you, a Chevy/Pepsi fan?

Where's my torch and pitchfork?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Tbh I'm both sides as Currently I train karate, Muay Thai and Brazilian jiu jitsu and I have trained boxing, Kung fu and taekwondo and it's all good stuff.these arguments are just dumb

 

[JowGaWolf]

Great another one.....who cares if it's balanced why does it even matter. Why does this vs nonsense have to exist...someone enjoys tma more then great, someone enjoys mma more then great. People like different things. Let everyone just get on with their own thing and focus on your life.

I agree completely. It would be better to just state that then to make a 30 minute video like this. Just say some people train TMA to fight and other's don't. To me this is much better than trying to hold the image of TMA as "Real kung fu can kill but I train peace" and then have the same people trying to fight and show that it's effective. We literally have people who train TMA but not for fighting, going out to fight and prove the effectiveness in an area that they don't train.

I've noticed that this is more of an issue in Chinese Martial Arts than Japanese martial arts or any other martial arts. That alone should be an telling sign.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Heretic! The rules are very clear; you must pick one side or the other and praise it & defend it to the end while vilifying and decrying the other for pure, unadulterated, evil. What are you, a Chevy/Pepsi fan?

Where's my torch and pitchfork?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I brought extras.

 

[DanT]

I'm going to say it again in case it was missed:

Kung Fu was originally designed for killing people on the battlefield. Only recently had it become about "self defence" and "inner peace".

 

[jobo]

I'm going to say it again in case it was missed:

Kung Fu was originally designed for killing people on the battlefield. Only recently had it become about "self defence" and "inner peace".

agree and il restate my point , that these cross style fights seem to have the mma guy at 50 lbs heaver and or 20/30years younger. Of course the tma loose when the odds are stacked like that

 

[lklawson]

I'm going to say it again in case it was missed:

Kung Fu was originally designed for killing people on the battlefield. Only recently had it become about "self defence" and "inner peace".

And you would be wrong.

Well, partly wrong and partly right. SOME forms of martial arts of Chinese origin may have been designed as "battlefield" <ahem>. It is also clear that some other forms were designed for other purposes. Civilian self defense is quite common among those purposes.

The same can be said of martial arts hailing from pretty much any ethnic locality.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[DanT]

And you would be wrong.

Well, partly wrong and partly right. SOME forms of martial arts of Chinese origin may have been designed as "battlefield" <ahem>. It is also clear that some other forms were designed for other purposes. Civilian self defense is quite common among those purposes.

The same can be said of martial arts hailing from pretty much any ethnic locality.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Yes I agree, I'm just speaking in general terms, and of more ancient CMA. Most of the techniques originate from battlefield arts.

 

[jobo]

And you would be wrong.

Well, partly wrong and partly right. SOME forms of martial arts of Chinese origin may have been designed as "battlefield" <ahem>. It is also clear that some other forms were designed for other purposes. Civilian self defense is quite common among those purposes.

The same can be said of martial arts hailing from pretty much any ethnic locality.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

why does it matter if it was designed to fight people in a war or designed to fight people in an alley way. To be effective at one it must be equal effective at the other

 

[Juany118]

What was he saying about mind set?

Many of his comments, imo come down to mind set. The ideas of...

1. Thinking and fighting, tactically (testing, etc) vs going all in and over committing.
2. Are you looking to deescalate the encounter and escape or escalate, remain, and eliminate the threat.
3. Is culture important to your training or is it not?

etc.

 

[Juany118]

There is no such thing. Or, rather, there is no way to quantify and qualify it. A "street attack" and "street fighter" could be, and has been, almost literally anything. It could be just a monkey dance brawl where no one is really trying to deliberately and permanently injure anyone but, rather, determine dominance and position on the social ladder. It could be a robbery without intent to harm or a robbery where the robber intends to leave no witnesses. It could be "the knock out game." It could be a random murder with any weapon or no weapon at all. The attacker could be unskilled, untrained, and inexperienced or experienced but untrained, or trained and experienced. I've seen examples of all.

It is simultaneously everything and nothing at all. The argument is, therefore, meaningless.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

In my experience though he hits the nail on the head when the line is crossed to physical (non firearm related violence) on the street involving not a bar fight etc but an unprovoked attack. They swing for the bleachers or move in FAST for a take down. etc.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

I'm going to say it again in case it was missed:

Kung Fu was originally designed for killing people on the battlefield. Only recently had it become about "self defence" and "inner peace".

Well that entirely depends on which side of history you think is correct. If you believe that Chinese Martial Arts originated with the Shaolin monks, then their primary function was as a form of exercise and self-defence for the monks to allow them to meditate for long periods of time. If however you believe that Chinese Martial Arts originated from the Yellow Emperor then they were primarily used on the battlefield.

That said, regardless of how and why Chinese Martial Arts originated, along the way various leaders of China have sought to stop the fighting aspect of Chinese Martial Arts, either by stopping people from practicing them entirely, or by stipulating that they can only be done for artistic and cultural purposes, NOT for fighting. With such barriers in place, it's no wonder that Chinese Martial Arts aren't trained for fighting anymore.

 

[lklawson]

why does it matter if it was designed to fight people in a war or designed to fight people in an alley way. To be effective at one it must be equal effective at the other

Well, no, that's not so at all.

The environment "on the battlefield" tends to be dramatically different from that of most places in civilian life, including an alley. Particularly when we are talking about historic, pre-gunpowder/pre-modern martial applications, a ton of things which dramatically impact strategy, tactics, technique, and equipment are, frankly, different.

Let's look at a few.

Armor is a big one. All the way up to modern warfare, personal armor on the battlefield is the norm. From the Hoplite breastplate, to the Roman lorica, from the medieval chain hauberk, to the modern PASGT vests, personal armor is the norm when "in combat." However, their extra bulk, discomfort, and expense makes them fairly uncommon for Joe Sixpack citizen's daily use. This difference alone immediately necessitates changes in technique, targeting, and weaponry. These changes are very clearly expressed in the martial art.

Next is the weapons. Frankly the weapons most frequently used on "the battlefield" are optimized for group combat. Historically speaking, these tend to be pole-weapons and distance weapons such as long spears, long axes, javelins, bows, slings, etc. While a 12 foot spear makes a whole lot of sense for a warrior in formation it is pretty cumbersome for the civilian. Even in the cases where swords are used, it turns out that the swords used on "the battlefield" are frequently not the same as what works best in civilian self defense. The Odachi and Nodachi are certainly different from a Katana, and there are parallels in every culture. The Smallsword, which was primarily a civilian sword sure looks (and is used) different from a Longsword or basket-hilted broadsword. In a Chinese context does anyone expect a fairly light Jian to be the most efficient design for group combat? It's called the "scholar's sword" for a reason, right?

I mentioned "group combat" and "formations" a couple of times so let's talk about friends. In a "battlefield" fight, formations are life and death. If the formation breaks or the line collapses into general scrimmage, the army dies. For millennia military texts have been written on what formations to use, how to ensure their integrity, and how to break them. In a civilian self defense context, seeing an opponent as part of a highly organized and disciplined formation is pretty rare.

Lighting is another element which tends to be different. While not as hard and fast a rule as armor, most battles tend to be fought in the daylight. Generals and armies like to be able to see the fight. Conversely, civilian attackers like to use the dark of night to pick out unsuspecting and unprepared victims.

That is another difference; opponent as opposed to victim. The mind set of people on either side of a conflict is different between a military engagement and a civilian self defense encounter.

That said, I think we do agree on one part of what I believe you are trying to say. Humans are still humans. They only break in so many ways. A dislocated shoulder is effective whether "on the battlefield" or "in a dark alley." But there are, indeed, a lot of differences as well.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

In my experience though he hits the nail on the head when the line is crossed to physical (non firearm related violence) on the street involving not a bar fight etc but an unprovoked attack. They swing for the bleachers or move in FAST for a take down. etc.

My point exactly; see how diverse it is? You listed 3 different types of encounters/attacks already and I bet you can think of a dozen more variations.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Midnight-shadow]

Well, no, that's not so at all.

The environment "on the battlefield" tends to be dramatically different from that of most places in civilian life, including an alley. Particularly when we are talking about historic, pre-gunpowder/pre-modern martial applications, a ton of things which dramatically impact strategy, tactics, technique, and equipment are, frankly, different.

Let's look at a few.

Armor is a big one. All the way up to modern warfare, personal armor on the battlefield is the norm. From the Hoplite breastplate, to the Roman lorica, from the medieval chain hauberk, to the modern PASGT vests, personal armor is the norm when "in combat." However, their extra bulk, discomfort, and expense makes them fairly uncommon for Joe Sixpack citizen's daily use. This difference alone immediately necessitates changes in technique, targeting, and weaponry. These changes are very clearly expressed in the martial art.

Next is the weapons. Frankly the weapons most frequently used on "the battlefield" are optimized for group combat. Historically speaking, these tend to be pole-weapons and distance weapons such as long spears, long axes, javelins, bows, slings, etc. While a 12 foot spear makes a whole lot of sense for a warrior in formation it is pretty cumbersome for the civilian. Even in the cases where swords are used, it turns out that the swords used on "the battlefield" are frequently not the same as what works best in civilian self defense. The Odachi and Nodachi are certainly different from a Katana, and there are parallels in every culture. The Smallsword, which was primarily a civilian sword sure looks (and is used) different from a Longsword or basket-hilted broadsword. In a Chinese context does anyone expect a fairly light Jian to be the most efficient design for group combat? It's called the "scholar's sword" for a reason, right?

I mentioned "group combat" and "formations" a couple of times so let's talk about friends. In a "battlefield" fight, formations are life and death. If the formation breaks or the line collapses into general scrimmage, the army dies. For millennia military texts have been written on what formations to use, how to ensure their integrity, and how to break them. In a civilian self defense context, seeing an opponent as part of a highly organized and disciplined formation is pretty rare.

Lighting is another element which tends to be different. While not as hard and fast a rule as armor, most battles tend to be fought in the daylight. Generals and armies like to be able to see the fight. Conversely, civilian attackers like to use the dark of night to pick out unsuspecting and unprepared victims.

That is another difference; opponent as opposed to victim. The mind set of people on either side of a conflict is different between a military engagement and a civilian self defense encounter.

That said, I think we do agree on one part of what I believe you are trying to say. Humans are still humans. They only break in so many ways. A dislocated shoulder is effective whether "on the battlefield" or "in a dark alley." But there are, indeed, a lot of differences as well.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I 100% agree, and you can see this very clearly when you do Chinese traditional weapons forms. I know forms for the Jian (straight sword), Dao (broadsword) and Qiang (spear), and all 3 reflect their original purpose. The Jian, as noted above, is a civilian's weapon, and the form assumes that you are fighting alone, and has you spinning and attacking in all directions. If you tried doing this while in a formation you will do more damage to your allies than your opponent. On the other hand, the Dao and Qiang forms have you moving forwards and backwards in a straight line, generally attacking in the same direction with each strike. This is how you would fight when in a battle formation, but if you tried to do such linear and predictable movements in a 1v1 civilian dual and you'd get cut to pieces.

Each form tells you a lot about the intended historical use for the weapon which is why I'm glad they are still practiced today, despite not being needed to fight with.

 

[jobo]

Well, no, that's not so at all.

The environment "on the battlefield" tends to be dramatically different from that of most places in civilian life, including an alley. Particularly when we are talking about historic, pre-gunpowder/pre-modern martial applications, a ton of things which dramatically impact strategy, tactics, technique, and equipment are, frankly, different.

Let's look at a few.

Armor is a big one. All the way up to modern warfare, personal armor on the battlefield is the norm. From the Hoplite breastplate, to the Roman lorica, from the medieval chain hauberk, to the modern PASGT vests, personal armor is the norm when "in combat." However, their extra bulk, discomfort, and expense makes them fairly uncommon for Joe Sixpack citizen's daily use. This difference alone immediately necessitates changes in technique, targeting, and weaponry. These changes are very clearly expressed in the martial art.

Next is the weapons. Frankly the weapons most frequently used on "the battlefield" are optimized for group combat. Historically speaking, these tend to be pole-weapons and distance weapons such as long spears, long axes, javelins, bows, slings, etc. While a 12 foot spear makes a whole lot of sense for a warrior in formation it is pretty cumbersome for the civilian. Even in the cases where swords are used, it turns out that the swords used on "the battlefield" are frequently not the same as what works best in civilian self defense. The Odachi and Nodachi are certainly different from a Katana, and there are parallels in every culture. The Smallsword, which was primarily a civilian sword sure looks (and is used) different from a Longsword or basket-hilted broadsword. In a Chinese context does anyone expect a fairly light Jian to be the most efficient design for group combat? It's called the "scholar's sword" for a reason, right?

I mentioned "group combat" and "formations" a couple of times so let's talk about friends. In a "battlefield" fight, formations are life and death. If the formation breaks or the line collapses into general scrimmage, the army dies. For millennia military texts have been written on what formations to use, how to ensure their integrity, and how to break them. In a civilian self defense context, seeing an opponent as part of a highly organized and disciplined formation is pretty rare.

Lighting is another element which tends to be different. While not as hard and fast a rule as armor, most battles tend to be fought in the daylight. Generals and armies like to be able to see the fight. Conversely, civilian attackers like to use the dark of night to pick out unsuspecting and unprepared victims.

That is another difference; opponent as opposed to victim. The mind set of people on either side of a conflict is different between a military engagement and a civilian self defense encounter.

That said, I think we do agree on one part of what I believe you are trying to say. Humans are still humans. They only break in so many ways. A dislocated shoulder is effective whether "on the battlefield" or "in a dark alley." But there are, indeed, a lot of differences as well.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

so if your fighting another peasants with no armour and no spear in an alley way in day light how is it different ?

 

[lklawson]

so if your fighting another peasants with no armour and no spear in an alley way in day light how is it different ?

It's probably not a battle and you're probably not in an Army.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[jobo]

It's probably not a battle and you're probably not in an Army.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

they had battles in towns in the old days, in day light, and only the gentry had amour .

 

[JowGaWolf]

why does it matter if it was designed to fight people in a war or designed to fight people in an alley way. To be effective at one it must be equal effective at the other

In war you'll need to have techniques and weapons that work against multiple attackers and armor. In civilian context, you are more likely to be fighting 1 vs 1. It makes a big difference in the mindset and strategy that a person will train with. In war they would want to kill as quickly as possible. You don't want to be in a situation where you are wrestling on the ground for 3 minutes trying to put someone in an arm bar. Factor in the weight of armor and you'll want to make sure that killing is as efficient as possible.