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

[Juany118]

I agree with everything except for this. There are still a few places that train it for combat. But they are rare.

Exactly. The reason it took me over a year to find my Sifu is because it took me that long to find one who taught what one would call "combative" Wing Chun. Kali (which he also teaches) clearly is combative, it starts with weapons and even today is taught to the Filipino Recon Marines. The Wing Chun that was harder to find BUT I lucked out and have a Sifu who still thinks like a cop and his Sifu teaches the DoJ and DoD combatives. I actually count myself very lucky that I had such a Sifu so close.

 

[Juany118]

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

Well let me break it down...

when I think gun I am NOT think MA...I am thinking shoot first or run for cover.
when I say bar fight I think of the guys posturing and clearly sizing each other up before blows strike...

the above is not what the video speaks to.

when I think of street robberies or the sudden "I want to kick this person's butt in a surprise assault" I have experienced exactly what the video speaks of. They over commit one way or the other. I actually size up people when I am encountering them. It eventually becomes easy to see who knows how to fight and who doesn't, who will follow the predictable path the video describes and who won't. It actually doesn't take formal training tbh an experienced brawler with natural talent may have limited techniques BUT being experienced they will use those techniques in an unpredictable manner. They learned the hard way what happens when you over commit etc.

That last bit is perhaps what he misses, one doesn't need formal teaching to be unpredictable, experience can fill that gap.

The main reason I liked this video was that it stopped with the "in the ring there are rules" stuff. That has some influence but really the rules are a small part. The main part is mind set and that only comes with experience and/or pressure testing and too many TMA schools lack the training that works on the "mind set" issue.

 

[lklawson]

this debate started, with someone saying they couldn't do kung fu on the battle field as they were wearing armour,

No. It didn't. It apparently started when I stated that not all "kung fu" was originally designed for "battlefield" use (a point which the person I was replying to stipulated). To use your parlance, I said that "kung fu" which was specifically designed for or evolved in the context of "battlefield" would look/be different from "kung fu" which was designed for/evolved in a civilian self defense context. I further contended that some systems of "kung fu" were most certainly intended for "battlefield" and that some were most certainly designed for civilian self defense. Your entrance to the debate was that they would not look or be different at all because "To be effective at one it must be equal effective at the other" which simply is not so because the context of "battlefield" is different for the context of civilian self defense.

now it turns out they had put an extra jumper on and thos wouldn't in anyway stop them kung fu fighting

No. It turns out that either you misunderstood what was written or have lost sight of it during your argument.

 

[lklawson]

Well let me break it down...

when I think gun I am NOT think MA...I am thinking shoot first or run for cover.

Your preferred response IS martial arts. There is an attack (opponent presents or reasonably threatens with gun). There is a trained and programmed response (move - find cover/concealment, present own gun, fire). This is most certainly martial art.

when I say bar fight I think of the guys posturing and clearly sizing each other up before blows strike...

the above is not what the video speaks to.

when I think of street robberies or the sudden "I want to kick this person's butt in a surprise assault" I have experienced exactly what the video speaks of. They over commit one way or the other. I actually size up people when I am encountering them. It eventually becomes easy to see who knows how to fight and who doesn't, who will follow the predictable path the video describes and who won't. It actually doesn't take formal training tbh an experienced brawler with natural talent may have limited techniques BUT being experienced they will use those techniques in an unpredictable manner. They learned the hard way what happens when you over commit etc.

That last bit is perhaps what he misses, one doesn't need formal teaching to be unpredictable, experience can fill that gap.

The main reason I liked this video was that it stopped with the "in the ring there are rules" stuff. That has some influence but really the rules are a small part. The main part is mind set and that only comes with experience and/or pressure testing and too many TMA schools lack the training that works on the "mind set" issue.

In general, I agree with most of what you wrote here. Nothing worth arguing about, for sure.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Juany118]

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

I tend to look at battlefield martial arts (what I call warrior arts) through the following lens. If the martial art has...
1. a decent variety of weapons (example WC, which I love studying, would fail this)

and/or

2. not a focus on striking but either a balance or more grappling (again the WC I study would fail here).

Why number 1? That's the obvious one. On the battlefield you want a force multiplier.

why #2? Because in the warfare two things are a concern. First you will likely only be going unarmed because you lost your weapon(s). If your opponent is still armed you want the grappling skills so you can get control of that weapon. Second if your opponent is armored, many strikes can potentially do more damage to you than the opponent. You need to attack the joints, either during or after you have disarmed the opponent. Know kicks can do that to the knees of course BUT do you want to kick inside the guard of a weapon wielding subject? Hence the grappling comes in.

I see this almost every night in training actually when we hop between TWC and Kali. Kali is a "warrior art", even if it is tribal vs Nation/Imperial warrior.

 

[Juany118]

Your preferred response IS martial arts. There is an attack (opponent presents or reasonably threatens with gun). There is a trained and programmed response (move - find cover/concealment, present own gun, fire). This is most certainly martial art.


Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I never thought of it that way. Good point.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

I tend to look at battlefield martial arts (what I call warrior arts) through the following lens. If the martial art has...
1. a decent variety of weapons (example WC, which I love studying, would fail this)

Why do you need to learn a variety of weapons in order to partake on the battlefield? The native tribes of Africa like the Suri still train for "battlefield" Martial Arts with spears, and that's all they use. Does the fact that they only use 1 weapon mean they aren't practicing a Martial Art?

 

[Juany118]

Why do you need to learn a variety of weapons in order to partake on the battlefield? The native tribes of Africa like the Suri still train for "battlefield" Martial Arts with spears, and that's all they use. Does the fact that they only use 1 weapon mean they aren't practicing a Martial Art?

A few reasons.

First you have to understand that often it is conceptual. As an example, in Kali while we train with sticks we use the stick like you would a sword (training to use a sword vs a stick/baton are different). Hence the saying "we can fight with sticks but we train to fight with swords."

Second you never want to go into battle with only one weapon. What happens if you lose the one weapon you walked in with? Are you going to carry multiple weapons of the same type? So if you are a Landsknecht, as an example, you would know how to use the pike but also the kaltzbalger. You may know how to use the sword but also have a knife on your belt etc.

Also FYI, the video you posted is actually part of the culture BUT it is not indicative of Ethiopian warrior training. The suri stick fighting is essentially a mating ritual of that tribe. It's purpose is to impress women and the winner wins the right to propose to the woman of his choice, who can chose to accept or reject. A great many competitions practiced by warriors in tribal cultures are more about either exercise, rites of passage, or other social constructs as noted above and not actually the martial art of their culture.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Why do you need to learn a variety of weapons in order to partake on the battlefield? The native tribes of Africa like the Suri still train for "battlefield" Martial Arts with spears, and that's all they use. Does the fact that they only use 1 weapon mean they aren't practicing a Martial Art?

Many of the tribes of Africa fought with multiple weapons. Each weapon had a benefit that could be taken advantage of. Do you actually think that they only used spears to hunt? If it can kill an animal then it can kill a man. So at the minimum, we are talking spears, knives, bows and arrows, clubs, and swords. Lets say you are in a war and you throw your spear at your enemy or it breaks. Now what? Are you going to go fight with your hands or are you going to reach for your secondary weapon that you carry on you?

African Weapons

Pay attention to the types of weapons they have. The club is called a Rungu

 

[Midnight-shadow]

Many of the tribes of Africa fought with multiple weapons. Each weapon had a benefit that could be taken advantage of. Do you actually think that they only used spears to hunt? If it can kill an animal then it can kill a man. So at the minimum, we are talking spears, knives, bows and arrows, clubs, and swords. Lets say you are in a war and you throw your spear at your enemy or it breaks. Now what? Are you going to go fight with your hands or are you going to reach for your secondary weapon that you carry on you?

African Weapons

Pay attention to the types of weapons they have. The club is called a Rungu

You're right, it was a silly statement on my part.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's just it. The "Traditional Method" is all about combat. Everything from the conditioning exercises to the strength building exercises, and the weapons, say as much. It screams combat. It think the problem is that China cracked down on many schools who taught martial arts as it truly should be and in their place changed the perception of martial arts as being all about being honorable and not about fighting. In my eyes, the training isn't about fighting, but the use of it in a Self-Defense aspect is.

It's like shooting a gun. People shoot at targets, it's not about killing, it's about hitting the target. But that changes when the target becomes an animal or a violent attacker in the context of self-defense.

I think the problem is that the traditional methods evolved over time to work together in the context they were used in. They used equipment available, and built upon the common body strengths of the time. We are not performing the same everyday activities as those people did, and we know more about conditioning. So, some of the traditional methods need updating (and often aren't), while others are misunderstood - even given supernatural significance by those who don't understand the culture they formed in.

There's nothing wrong with traditional methods, properly used, when they fit the objective. But they are often used without sufficient understanding. Let's take that bag-flipping-kick drill you use. In 100 years, that could turn into people kicking the wrong kind of bag (say, a full Muay Thai bag), or using the wrong kick, or trying to use it for the wrong purpose. It would then be probably useless, harmful, or just confusing to the practitioners. Yet, well understood, it makes sense and is helpful.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I think the problem is that the traditional methods evolved over time to work together in the context they were used in.

I agree. Context is everything. The one thing that has always made me scratch my head with TMAs is that many of the techniques that are demonstrated are based on "old methods of attacks" There's nothing wrong with the technique except that it hasn't been shown in the context of how one can expect to get attacked these days. For myself personally it takes a long time to figure out how to translate an old technique to deal with a newer? or modern? style attack.

 

[jobo]

I agree. Context is everything. The one thing that has always made me scratch my head with TMAs is that many of the techniques that are demonstrated are based on "old methods of attacks" There's nothing wrong with the technique except that it hasn't been shown in the context of how one can expect to get attacked these days. For myself personally it takes a long time to figure out how to translate an old technique to deal with a newer? or modern? style attack.

apart from the invention of guns, how have the way we can expect to be attacked changed over time?

 

[Juany118]

apart from the invention of guns, how have the way we can expect to be attacked changed over time?

A few things. I think to an extent the context can simply be the surrounding arts at the time. As an example there are techniques in Muay Thai that are not in the various Kung Fu styles so one would have to adapt what is in those styles to counter the technique.

 

[jobo]

A few things. I think to an extent the context can simply be the surrounding arts at the time. As an example there are techniques in Muay Thai that are not in the various Kung Fu styles so one would have to adapt what is in those styles to counter the technique.

MT is a very simple system of all out assault using feet knee elbows and punches. All or those are common place in kung fu. It's not the techniques' that are greatly different its the intensity of the delivery and the fitness of the fighters

but anyway he seemed to be talking in a far more general sense just there is no defence against a MT low kick. But then anybody can do one of them with a bit of practise

 

[JowGaWolf]

apart from the invention of guns, how have the way we can expect to be attacked changed over time?

In reference to TMAs, the way people attack each other has changed considerably. We only need to look at the TMA demos to get an insight on the type of traditional attacks that are being done. In all those demos you won't see the attacker move anything like the way we see people attack in the street fight videos shown in youtube.

When was the last time any of us have seen a TMA demonstration on how to deal with someone who bobs and weaves like this kid?

Or how to fight someone like this?

 

[jobo]

In reference to TMAs, the way people attack each other has changed considerably. We only need to look at the TMA demos to get an insight on the type of traditional attacks that are being done. In all those demos you won't see the attacker move anything like the way we see people attack in the street fight videos shown in youtube.

When was the last time any of us have seen a TMA demonstration on how to deal with someone who bobs and weaves like this kid?

Or how to fight someone like this?

so bobbing and weaving are a new invention ? Moving about to make it difficult for people to hit you is as old as fighting

 

[JowGaWolf]

so bobbing and weaving are a new invention ? Moving about to make it difficult for people to hit you is as old as fighting

I never said that bobbing and weaving are new inventions, but they are done differently now than how they are done during the early days of bare knuckle fighting. I have yet to see a TMA train bobbing and weaving. I've seen many teach how to take angles and step off center but never the bobbing and weaving.

You'll see TMA use the parry as they step of center and that's as close to a weave as you'll get.

 

[jobo]

I never said that bobbing and weaving are new inventions, but they are done differently now than how they are done during the early days of bare knuckle fighting. I have yet to see a TMA train bobbing and weaving. I've seen many teach how to take angles and step off center but never the bobbing and weaving.

You'll see TMA use the parry as they step of center and that's as close to a weave as you'll get.

wouldn't you just kick them in the leg, if their head was going up and down. Boxing is a very effective techneque unless people are allowed to kick you, in which case. Hands up guards' and bobbing heads are not a lot of use.
are you claiming that kicks are not included in tma?

 

[JowGaWolf]

MT is a very simple system of all out assault using feet knee elbows and punches. All or those are common place in kung fu. It's not the techniques' that are greatly different its the intensity of the delivery and the fitness of the fighters

but anyway he seemed to be talking in a far more general sense just there is no defence against a MT low kick. But then anybody can do one of them with a bit of practise

Muay Thai is more than just feet, knees, and punches. They are good with sensing when their opponent is off balance and how to take advantage of it. From the outside it looks like it's just the basics, but there's more to it than that. I allowed my brother to put me into a Muay Thai clinch because I wanted to experience it. When he locked me, he moved me so I would be off balance and as I tried to regain my balance, he kneed me. The entire 30 seconds was nothing but me trying to retain my balance and getting kneed. The only real option that I saw was to first stop him from taking my balance and to move him off balance when I thought he was going to attack. It almost reminded me of a Muay Thai push hands but with knees.