Opinions on XMA

[exile]

As is usually the case, the problem is not with the activity itself, but the way the marketers market it. Thinking back again to that horrendous Discovery Channel special, I remember the useless narrator assuring us in at least two different places that some student or other of Matt Mullins, who subsequently has become a core member of MM's Sideswipe performance team—their description; I didn't make it up—is 'the future of karate'. The future of karate. Just the one. Media marketing strategies do this all the time: fix on the televisable aspect of some broad-spectrum activity and actively promote it, leading to the widespread assumption that that's all there is. The result is that people who are drawn to that sort of thing go into it, those who want something else avoid it, and we wind up with a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's not Matt Mullins' fault; it's the fault of broadcast media's one-dimensional take on virtually everything they touch. TKD people are going to be especially aware of this sort of thing, but it's going to affect every MA practiced. After all, how much audience attention would head-to-head competing bunkai interpretations under extreme pressure-testing conditions get, compared to what we see in standard XMA performances? And that's what guides the way MAs are presented to the public.

This whole business is of concern to me because I want people coming into TKD who understand that the art is built around a solid core of very practical self-defense applicability. I want them to realize that that's what they can get from it, and to train it with that in mind, in case they ever need it—because if they do need it for that, they'll really need it. I don't want to see the culture of TKD presented in a way which totally eclipses its survival-combat essence. Between Olympic-sparring and XMA forms performance, though, that's getting to be something very much like wishful thinking, I'm afraid....

 

[Archangel M]

Flash no Bang!

 

[exile]

Flash no Bang!

:lol: ... something like that, for sure!

 

[BrandonLucas]

For the third time, the folks on the XMA teams have traditional training in various recognized martial arts. I made it easy for you to learn more about them (as I did) and posted the link earlier in the thread....do I have to click on it for you as well?

XMA is no doubt intended to entertain through flash, and I've yet to hear anyone claim that the "tricks" they do are practical self defense maneuvers. In that same vein, many of the tactics used in the sport application of many martial arts would get you killed in a street fight.....does that disqualify them as martial arts as well?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a meat & potatos martial artist, but I think it's good to keep an open mind and give credit where credit is due. Martial arts are multi-faceted and because one form seems alien to what I practice doesn't mean that disqualifies it as a martial art. But then, I don't claim to have any authority over the classification of a style either. LOL

Ok...

First, I also like to keep an open mind for all things. I strive to do this in all aspects of life, not just as it relates to martial arts.

With that said, I do give huge props to the XMA practitioners...what they do is something I could only dream of doing. I do also realize that many of them have at least some sort of TMA core.

Now, the thing is, I don't think that it's fair that they participate in a competition that is for TMA practitioners where the competitors are judged on how well a form is performed and how good it looks. It's much the same as bringing a gun to a knife fight...it's one-sided.

I also understand that the competitions are seperated in some of the tournements for XMA competitors, but not all of the tournements are this way. I fail to see the logic that says that if a form is performed well enough by someone from TMA, that it should be able to stand up against the "flash" and "sizzle" of an XMA form.

It is my opinion that XMA should be termed XPA, or Xtreme Performance Arts, as I have yet to see anything martial about it...and I listed several definations for martial arts in one of my previous posts.

To me, the issue is not so much that these guys are not good at what they do; that's certainly not the case. But I do think that what they do is not relevant to a martial arts tournement setting, and I don't think it's fair when they compete in one.

It's an apples/oranges scenerio. How can you compare judging someone on precise technique, deep stances, power and flow to judging someone on how high they can jump while turning the max number of flips, and land using an obscure kick? Just the fact that the person is able to jump and flip will outweigh the "look" of the other form to the point that there just is no comparison.

To me, that's what this is about. Even when the XMA guys are based in a core TMA, they aren't using what they were taught in that TMA, unless I missed something, and 720 degree flips and spins are taught in Karate somewhere. I do realize that they are trained in a core art, but they're not using that core art to compete...they're using a "cheat".

 

[BrandonLucas]

As is usually the case, the problem is not with the activity itself, but the way the marketers market it. Thinking back again to that horrendous Discovery Channel special, I remember the useless narrator assuring us in at least two different places that some student or other of Matt Mullins, who subsequently has become a core member of MM's Sideswipe performance team—their description; I didn't make it up—is 'the future of karate'. The future of karate. Just the one. Media marketing strategies do this all the time: fix on the televisable aspect of some broad-spectrum activity and actively promote it, leading to the widespread assumption that that's all there is. The result is that people who are drawn to that sort of thing go into it, those who want something else avoid it, and we wind up with a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's not Matt Mullins' fault; it's the fault of broadcast media's one-dimensional take on virtually everything they touch. TKD people are going to be especially aware of this sort of thing, but it's going to affect every MA practiced. After all, how much audience attention would head-to-head competing bunkai interpretations under extreme pressure-testing conditions get, compared to what we see in standard XMA performances? And that's what guides the way MAs are presented to the public.

This whole business is of concern to me because I want people coming into TKD who understand that the art is built around a solid core of very practical self-defense applicability. I want them to realize that that's what they can get from it, and to train it with that in mind, in case they ever need it—because if they do need it for that, they'll really need it. I don't want to see the culture of TKD presented in a way which totally eclipses its survival-combat essence. Between Olympic-sparring and XMA forms performance, though, that's getting to be something very much like wishful thinking, I'm afraid....

This is also the other part of the issue...without the improper marketing, XMA wouldn't be viewed the way it is, nor would it be added into forums where it doesn't belong. As I have said several times before, there is a place for XMA, but that place is not in a traditional tournement...if you can even all any of the tournements traditional anymore.

 

[celtic_crippler]

I hate to point this out, but if you define a martial art by how practical it is for self defense then that disqualifies quite a few that are already widely accepted and would more than likely offend more than a few members of this forum.

Not everyone is looking for the same thing in a "martial art" and I think it's important to recognize some are more drawn to the "art" than the "martial." LOL

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Yes, CC, but the term arts in 'martial arts' isn't the same as 'art' as the word is generally used in western culture. Adding that usage of the word art to Martial Art is okay; whenever a fighting method is taken to another culture, that culture will put its own stamp on it.

But that aesthetic artistic value is not what was originally being communicated in the term, 'art'. A better translation would have been fighting method, and from that standpoint, XMA as a stand alone does not qualify.

Not dissing XMA, mind you; given that schools put blackbelts on six year olds that can't wipe themselves without mommy's help, and call the kid a martial artist, XMA practicioners would certainly be more worthy of the title.

Personally, I see XMA as an extention of whatever TMA the practitioners are trained in rather than as a separate entity. It is only tournaments where there seems to be an issue, an issue easily dealt with by having an XMA and TMA forms divisions and not requiring the two to compete against eachother.

Daniel

 

[BrandonLucas]

I hate to point this out, but if you define a martial art by how practical it is for self defense then that disqualifies quite a few that are already widely accepted and would more than likely offend more than a few members of this forum.

Not everyone is looking for the same thing in a "martial art" and I think it's important to recognize some are more drawn to the "art" than the "martial." LOL

It's not just me that defines it in this way...I posted previously the wiki definition of the term martial art.

It's a different story for someone who is studying a martial art with the emphasis on the art. The martial aspect is still there, still being taught.

Most martial arts have aspects that are not practical for self defense. In TKD in particular, I wouldn't use a flying sidekick, as I'm 300 lbs, and the energy that it would take to get me off the ground and fly through the air could better be channelled into a series of moves that would work more effeciently with less risk.

The difference is that XMA is not practical at all for self defense. While TKD may have a few flashy moves in its arsenal, the main focal point of the martial art is self defense. The main focal point of XMA is to look flashy and cool.

Like I said before: apples/oranges.

 

[BrandonLucas]

Yes, CC, but the term arts in 'martial arts' isn't the same as 'art' as the word is generally used in western culture. Adding that usage of the word art to Martial Art is okay; whenever a fighting method is taken to another culture, that culture will put its own stamp on it.

But that aesthetic artistic value is not what was originally being communicated in the term, 'art'. A better translation would have been fighting method, and from that standpoint, XMA as a stand alone does not qualify.

Not dissing XMA, mind you; given that schools put blackbelts on six year olds that can't wipe themselves without mommy's help, and call the kid a martial artist, XMA practicioners would certainly be more worthy of the title.

Personally, I see XMA as an extention of whatever TMA the practitioners are trained in rather than as a separate entity. It is only tournaments where there seems to be an issue, an issue easily dealt with by having an XMA and TMA forms divisions and not requiring the two to compete against eachother.

Daniel

What he said.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Yes, CC, but the term arts in 'martial arts' isn't the same as 'art' as the word is generally used in western culture. Adding that usage of the word art to Martial Art is okay; whenever a fighting method is taken to another culture, that culture will put its own stamp on it.

But that aesthetic artistic value is not what was originally being communicated in the term, 'art'. A better translation would have been fighting method, and from that standpoint, XMA as a stand alone does not qualify.

Not dissing XMA, mind you; given that schools put blackbelts on six year olds that can't wipe themselves without mommy's help, and call the kid a martial artist, XMA practicioners would certainly be more worthy of the title.

Personally, I see XMA as an extention of whatever TMA the practitioners are trained in rather than as a separate entity. It is only tournaments where there seems to be an issue, an issue easily dealt with by having an XMA and TMA forms divisions and not requiring the two to compete against eachother.

Daniel

I'll continue to play devil's advocate here. LOL

Good points and no argument from me on the silliness of putting black belts on 6 year olds, or keeping competitions separate when there is such a large degree of difference in approach and/or methodology. I wouldn't expect a Judoka to spar a WTF-TKD.

However, you did not address the fact that there are other accepted forms of martial arts that have little practical application.

Personally, I've always looked for practicality and logic in a martial art but I understand that different people look for different things when choosing a martial art to study.

Also, here is the standard definition:

any of the traditional forms of Oriental self-defense or combat that utilize physical skill and coordination without weapons, as karate, aikido, judo, or kung fu, often practiced as sport.

One could easily argue that American Kenpo is not a martial art because it is not a traditional oriental form of self-defense. You could also argue that any "art" using weapons would be disqualified based on that definition.

We, as martial artists, have a more broad view and understanding....I would think... than the general population.

It's not just me that defines it in this way...I posted previously the wiki definition of the term martial art.

It's a different story for someone who is studying a martial art with the emphasis on the art. The martial aspect is still there, still being taught.

Most martial arts have aspects that are not practical for self defense. In TKD in particular, I wouldn't use a flying sidekick, as I'm 300 lbs, and the energy that it would take to get me off the ground and fly through the air could better be channelled into a series of moves that would work more effeciently with less risk.

The difference is that XMA is not practical at all for self defense. While TKD may have a few flashy moves in its arsenal, the main focal point of the martial art is self defense. The main focal point of XMA is to look flashy and cool.

Like I said before: apples/oranges.

Actually....there are many that hold TKD is not conducive what-so-ever to self-defense. I'm sure many in TKD would argue otherwise just as there are some in XMA that would argue that what they do is martial arts. It's important when trying to keep an open mind to try and separate opinion from facts.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to accept it, like it, or endorse it. My point is that just because your initial knee-jerk reaction to it is negative does not discount XMA as a martial art; especially when other performance oriented arts are already accepted.

The first time I saw XMA I had a negative reaction to it as well, but after I looked into it some more and accepted it for what it was I adjusted my view.

I don't think anyone is debating that XMA is all about flash. I think what some are missing is that those that make up this DEMO TEAM are classically trained. I don't think the intent of XMA is to demonstrate those aspects, but instead is a marketing tool that gets people outside of martial arts excited about martial arts, and at the end of the day if someone signs up to take classes to learn what you consider to be a legitimate martial art because of what they saw in a demo put on by XMA....is that such a bad thing?

I work in marketing....I know...people only pay attention to what I call "Shiney." If you're wanting to draw attention to something, you better make it "shiney" or you'll never get customer one through your door. Once you get them on the mat, you can teach them....but as long as they're not interested you never will.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I'll continue to play devil's advocate here. LOL

Good points and no argument from me on the silliness of putting black belts on 6 year olds, or keeping competitions separate when there is such a large degree of difference in approach and/or methodology. I wouldn't expect a Judoka to spar a WTF-TKD.

However, you did not address the fact that there are other accepted forms of martial arts that have little practical application.

Personally, I've always looked for practicality and logic in a martial art but I understand that different people look for different things when choosing a martial art to study.

Also, here is the standard definition:

any of the traditional forms of Oriental self-defense or combat that utilize physical skill and coordination without weapons, as karate, aikido, judo, or kung fu, often practiced as sport.

One could easily argue that American Kenpo is not a martial art because it is not a traditional oriental form of self-defense. You could also argue that any "art" using weapons would be disqualified based on that definition.

We, as martial artists, have a more broad view and understanding....I would think... than the general population.

I don't know about that, CC; I think that the general population could be easily talked into believing that almost anything is a martial art: just add belts, lol. I have no doubt that I could convince the unwary that Rex Kwon Do was real, make up a history, and then rant about how Napoleon Dynamite besmirched it, and then sign said unwary up for a two year blackbelt contract.

The definition you listed is partial, but given that I see the term martial art better stated as fighting method, I don't consider the country of origin to be a factor in classifying something as a martial art. All cultures have 'martial arts' in the most literal sense of the definition.

Regarding martial arts that have little practical application, there are quite a few, I am sure. I'd have to discuss them on a one by one basis, and am really not familiar with them enough to declare, 'martial' or not.

I consider modern taekwondo as it is practiced in most schools to be treading very close to the line of no longer being a true martial art, rather becoming a martial sport.

And that is really what boxing, kickboxing,XMA, modern Wushu, and WTF TKD are: martial sports with varying degrees of actual martial application. Nothing wrong with that; but I don't think that people should kid themselves; people may think that a Mustang is a sports car, but it that doesn't change the fact that it is actually a pony car.

A martial sport has value all its own and doesn't need to be a martial art. Martial sports all have a parent martial art and in many ways, are an extension of that art. Each should be appreciated for what it is.

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Actually....there are many that hold TKD is not conducive what-so-ever to self-defense. I'm sure many in TKD would argue otherwise just as there are some in XMA that would argue that what they do is martial arts. It's important when trying to keep an open mind to try and separate opinion from facts.

I am in taekwondo and while I would argue that taekwondo as it was originally conceived and still taught in some dojangs (mine included, oh thank Heaven!) is very practical for self defense and is a fairly complete stand up fighting style, most taekwondo schools that I have seen do not teach in any way that is practical for self defense or even martial sport; most are glorified after school programs for kids and (poor) fitness programs for adults with maybe a couple of dedicated students who take it upon themselves to go beyond that.

Daniel

 

[Sylo]

I don't know about that, CC; I think that the general population could be easily talked into believing that almost anything is a martial art: just add belts, lol. I have no doubt that I could convince the unwary that Rex Kwon Do was real, make up a history, and then rant about how Napoleon Dynamite besmirched it, and then sign said unwary up for a two year blackbelt contract.

The definition you listed is partial, but given that I see the term martial art better stated as fighting method, I don't consider the country of origin to be a factor in classifying something as a martial art. All cultures have 'martial arts' in the most literal sense of the definition.

Regarding martial arts that have little practical application, there are quite a few, I am sure. I'd have to discuss them on a one by one basis, and am really not familiar with them enough to declare, 'martial' or not.

I consider modern taekwondo as it is practiced in most schools to be treading very close to the line of no longer being a true martial art, rather becoming a martial sport.

And that is really what boxing, kickboxing,XMA, modern Wushu, and WTF TKD are: martial sports with varying degrees of actual martial application. Nothing wrong with that; but I don't think that people should kid themselves; people may think that a Mustang is a sports car, but it that doesn't change the fact that it is actually a pony car.

A martial sport has value all its own and doesn't need to be a martial art. Martial sports all have a parent martial art and in many ways, are an extension of that art. Each should be appreciated for what it is.

Daniel

What do you consider martial sport TKD?

I want to make sure thats not what my school teaches. (Pretty sure we are as close to tradition as it gets)

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

What do you consider martial sport TKD?

I want to make sure thats not what my school teaches. (Pretty sure we are as close to tradition as it gets)

Sylo, you know your school better than any of us here, so whether or not it is a sport school is something you can easily determine. From what I've of your posts, you are well qualified to tell the difference.

To answer your question as to what I mean...

WTF sparring is martial sport. Heck, any tournament sparring is martial sport. When a school places tournament style sparring over the rest of the curriculum, when the curriculum is there for the sole purpose of belt promotions, and when the curriculum has no real practical application outside of tournament sparring or forms competition, then that is what I'd consider a martial sport.

Some schools are honest about this and promote themselves as sport-only schools. It is just as difficult to be a fantastic sport school as it is to be a traditional school, but very few schools are even mediocre sport schools.

In fact, most TKD schools that I have seen don't even qualify as sports schools: they're nice little after school programs/fitness programs that do give students exposure to the martial arts in a fairly non challenging, albeit fairly expensive, setting.

Daniel

 

[celtic_crippler]

Exactly.


Heh...you wanna tell those folks they aren't practicing martial arts you go right ahead. I'll keep my mouth shut. LOL

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Exactly.


Heh...you wanna tell those folks they aren't practicing martial arts you go right ahead. I'll keep my mouth shut. LOL

If they don't ask, I won't tell.

Daniel

 

[Sylo]

Sylo, you know your school better than any of us here, so whether or not it is a sport school is something you can easily determine. From what I've of your posts, you are well qualified to tell the difference.

To answer your question as to what I mean...

WTF sparring is martial sport. Heck, any tournament sparring is martial sport. When a school places tournament style sparring over the rest of the curriculum, when the curriculum is there for the sole purpose of belt promotions, and when the curriculum has no real practical application outside of tournament sparring or forms competition, then that is what I'd consider a martial sport.

Some schools are honest about this and promote themselves as sport-only schools. It is just as difficult to be a fantastic sport school as it is to be a traditional school, but very few schools are even mediocre sport schools.

In fact, most TKD schools that I have seen don't even qualify as sports schools: they're nice little after school programs/fitness programs that do give students exposure to the martial arts in a fairly non challenging, albeit fairly expensive, setting.

Daniel

Yeah your right.. we are in the clear.

we spar.. but its medium contact continous.. we are taught to keep our hands up, and are not taught certain special tricks to win matches. We are sparring to defend against an attacker, not a competitor.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Yeah your right.. we are in the clear.

Just to qualify, I don't see it as being in the clear or not, though people serious about self defense do.

I see it as 'know what you're getting.' A truly good sport school will have a degree of practical application; those kicks hurt! And if you can knock out a mugger with a spinning back hook kick to the head before he manages to shoot/stab/strike/grab you, then you have definitely successfully defended yourself. Also, a truly good sport school is no picnic. Any competative athlete likely trains harder than a solid seventy percent or more of practicing martial artists. The time and work that it takes to be truly competative, particularly at a state or national level, is monumental and I truly respect it, just as I respect the hard work that XMA competitors put in.

But a truly good sport school still won't teach practical SD, and if its a WTF school, punches will be secondary and blocks will be nearly nonexistent.

Now, if you know this going in, then great. And if it is a truly good sport school, you will.

Daniel

 

[BrandonLucas]

I'll continue to play devil's advocate here. LOL






Actually....there are many that hold TKD is not conducive what-so-ever to self-defense. I'm sure many in TKD would argue otherwise just as there are some in XMA that would argue that what they do is martial arts. It's important when trying to keep an open mind to try and separate opinion from facts.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to accept it, like it, or endorse it. My point is that just because your initial knee-jerk reaction to it is negative does not discount XMA as a martial art; especially when other performance oriented arts are already accepted.

The first time I saw XMA I had a negative reaction to it as well, but after I looked into it some more and accepted it for what it was I adjusted my view.

I don't think anyone is debating that XMA is all about flash. I think what some are missing is that those that make up this DEMO TEAM are classically trained. I don't think the intent of XMA is to demonstrate those aspects, but instead is a marketing tool that gets people outside of martial arts excited about martial arts, and at the end of the day if someone signs up to take classes to learn what you consider to be a legitimate martial art because of what they saw in a demo put on by XMA....is that such a bad thing?

I work in marketing....I know...people only pay attention to what I call "Shiney." If you're wanting to draw attention to something, you better make it "shiney" or you'll never get customer one through your door. Once you get them on the mat, you can teach them....but as long as they're not interested you never will.

I can certainly appreciate and respect the playing of devil's advocate here...it makes this discussion more enjoyable.

I will grant you the first paragraph up there. There are indeed people who don't regard TKD as a pratical martial art. The thing is, if you research TKD, you will find that the origins were for SD purposes. The problem is that along the way, McDojo's ruined the name, and TKD became known as a joke to alot of people.

If you research XMA, their origins do not point to anything to do with SD at all. And, as stated before, SD is the key to martail arts...otherwise, the art is not martial.

Even performanced based arts are still martial arts. The difference is that there is still the martial aspect inbedded in them. XMA is not performance based, its core is performance, and everything else falls around that.

Capoeira is performance based, but with an SD core. Tai Chi as well. While they may look really awesome, they still have the basis of combat...and I honestly wouldn't mind losing in a forms competition to someone from either art.

And as far as someone from XMA being classically trained...I'm not debating that at all. There are quite a few metal guitarists out there and shred the guitar apart who started out playing on a nylon stringed flaminco styled guitar.

The difference is that someone from XMA is not transferring their knowledge of self defense into the showiness of the art...it's all about show. And while this is very useful for marketing, as you're saying, it is still not fair to someone who still practices TMA to compete in the same competition.

And what you're saying about getting the public's attention using XMA to get them in the door is 100% correct, and I see nothing at all wrong with that....I fell in love with martial arts after seeing Best of the Best, Karate Kid, and Gymkata, and I practice a true SD martial art to this day. If that's what gets them in the door, great!

The point of all this is that there is a place for those guys, and it's not in a traditional setting. It's makes the TMAists look inferior in forms competitions when they're all competing together. I'm certainly not dogging on XMA at all...I love to watch it, for no other reason than to wonder how on earth they even figure out how to do that, let alone practice it.

I'm just saying that the playing field is not even as far as judging the forms competition goes...and that if the XMAists don't want to stop competing in the traditional tournements, I think there should be a rule that says that if your form is an XMA styled form, and you insist on competing with TMAists in the form competition, then you should have to automatically sign up for the sparring comepitition, no matter if it's full or light contact.

 

[zDom]

For the third time, the folks on the XMA teams have traditional training in various recognized martial arts.

Be that as it may, it doesn't mean they ever bothered to get it right (proper chamber positions, directions of motion, proper lines, position of joints and angles) before moving on to backflips.

In other words: sure, they might have completed a TMA curriculum — but with a C or D grade instead of an A or B.

My opinion is (and that's what was asked for, right? Opinions?) is that student would be better of bringing their basics up to an A grade

and then adding in some backflips and 720-degree turns instead of rushing past the basics to do the flashy stuff.