The Resurgence of Traditional Martial Arts in Modern Mixed Martial Arts
- Thread starter Xue Sheng
- Start date
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Interesting article. The question kind of overlooked is the influence MMA has on the traditional art. Do traditional arts look at the MMA process and adjust? If so, in what ways?
I get these are rhetorical questions. It expecting any answers.
That was a good article. Thanks.
isshinryuronin
Senior Master
I must question if there really is a "resurgence of TMA in modern MMA" or are we talking about just a few techniques from TMA being borrowed and drilled. There is much more to TMA than just technique.
Haruhiko
Green Belt
"...bringing a renewed sense of strategy, artistry, and philosophy to the cage...
That's a stretch.
UFC fighters are following an arbitrary ruleset that's confined within an octagon with a fence around it. It's not that deep.
Sammy Naur
Blue Belt
But to be fair most UFC fighters will really destroy most TMA fighters that don't train beyond the "soft skills". And there are plenty of MMA competitors that appreciate strategy, artistry, and philosophy.
The ruleset isn't really arbitrary, I would argue TMA helped define it. If anthing MMA is less violent than TMA historically. There's a ref, laws, rules, medics, etc. and TMA people who attempt barbaric stuff will go to jail for years. You can't do that in most places anymore. Maybe in the third world where warlords rule.
Somebody showed me a Mongolian Bohk technique once that basically broke legs. But the Mongolians don't do that sort of thing to each other for the last few hundred years because they are more civilized nowadays.
I don't think much has changed in this regard though, since UFC 1. If you don't really train as a fighter, for real, all the philosophy, strategy, and artistry might as well be written on your tombstone.
Haruhiko
Green Belt
Define "soft skills" because I hear this term a lot but people use it in different ways. Is grappling a "soft skill"?
It absolutely is - it prohibits a majority of techniques taught in TMA (for good reason) thereby constraining the "fight meta" to grappling, time limits and rounds, and leads to UFC competitors training for those conditions. The stamina threshold is completely different. The fact you're inside an octagon also limits the scope of strategic options in some TMA that use more open space to lead and navigate one's opponent.
Thankfully I don't train in bloodsports that allow for ground-and-pound floor and wall shenanigans, but disallows techniques that would immediately incapacitate the other fighter. Again, reasonably so. There wouldn't be many fighters left.
Could the UFC or MMA learn a lot from TMA? Yes.
Could they use what they learnt? Not if it's against the rules.
Is there "a renewed sense of strategy, artistry, and philosophy" in MMA or UFC fights? Remains to be seen.
Sammy Naur
Blue Belt
Soft skills as in theory, talk, discussion. Anything but physical confrontation.
Grappling is definitely not a soft skill, when done right. But you can see this even in arts that claim to teach grappling but are more like "crappling" because 90% is some guy who can't grapple showing some supposed "anti grappling" technique.
The talk crowd is what I mean by soft skill. The hard skill people just lock horns.
Last edited:
Sammy Naur
Blue Belt
Not so sure about that. If we go through the unified rules there are plenty of dangerous techniques in MMA.
Practically all strikes I can think of are legal, knees, elbows, fists.
And no TMA I can think of actually permits training banned techniques in a legit way in 2025, unless you're talking about underground Bloodsport type stuff, which is movie fantasy.
windwalker099
3rd Black Belt
Key point, " I can think of "
more like. "that people know about"
Things get tested....for those not involved, probably a better life style choice.
Sammy Naur
Blue Belt
I think that's a given from UFC1 onward, when there there no gloves or time limits, wrestling dominated, even against people who claimed to be elite strikers.
End of the day, things like endurance, patience, and agility win. And a lot of the pure TMA crowd don't exhibit those qualities. They are associated with ranks, belts, lineage, old books, and religious/self cultivation themes.
As much as I dislike some of them, a well trained MMA fighter is likely going to murder a TMA devotee in a street fight. That's the whole "street vs sport fallacy". A well trained combat athlete, or even a D1 wrestler, is going to throttle the average TMA black belt. And I don't say that to discourage TMA but we just don't have much evidence to the contrary.
But in that context I would argue modern MMA is far closer to ancient fighting that TMA is, because TMA has all that baggage.
Sammy Naur
Blue Belt
Name some.
Benny's just taking about some rulesets like Lethwei that are a bit more permissive than, say, MMA. Head butts etc.
But still there is no representation of TMA in those types of tournaments.
Most TMA practitioners would not do well in Lethwei, Vale Tudo, or even Sanda, which is also regulated.
Again, let's not go back 30 years and start pretending the TMA crowd dominates martial arts combat. They don't. Because why should you have to quote Benny Urquidez in 2025 as proof, a guy who hasn't fought in a generation?
He is an exception. And he would be the first to say that most TMA students today are not training right no matter how many banned techniques they think they know. Most of them would get KO'd or choked out in seconds. Countless hours of footage of that out there.
Last edited:
Prince_Alarming
Black Belt
I.... think it's a false dichotomy. MMA is now its own style, but it's informed by and based on traditional martial arts. The main reason I plumped for a traditional martial art is local availability and personal loyalty. Sensei went to the same school I did and we went through the same horrors.
Sammy Naur
Blue Belt
That's kind of true and my point too, let's not go back to "this is MMA, that is TMA"
The whole point of the OP article was "
The Influence of Traditional Martial Arts Techniques"
"Traditional martial arts, such as karate, taekwondo, kung fu, and capoeira, emphasize fluidity, speed, and precision. These qualities are increasingly valued in modern MMA, where split-second timing and unorthodox techniques can determine a fight’s outcome."
But of course to make any of those TMA work well, you need to use them in combat matches. By that measure no amount of drilling over and over is going to compare.
The MMA crowd disdained crane kicks then Lyoto Machida did one, and everyone shut up. That's how it should be.
windwalker099
3rd Black Belt
Lets not infer something that no one said.
Nor pretend that those studying TMA don't understand their practices...
As to Benny, old guys tend to remember other old guys,, Didn't quoted him, only presented a story that highlighted
events take place with people, that many are not aware of...in todays time.
Before they become aware of it, others knew of it and practiced it...
Some styles who do compete modify what they do, and train for the competitions they intend to compete in..
Not really a fan of this,,,however understand the rationale and why others are..
A lot CMA historically developed from meetings with others seeking to improve their practices.
It will be interesting in the future to see how this development shapes traditional CMA practices while still trying maintain the essence of their historical development.
Last edited:
Sammy Naur
Blue Belt
A lot of people studying TMA definitely don't. I'm not inferring that from what you said, but it's the truth.
We live in an age where most TMAists wouldn't survive in a fight because of how they train (not like Benny).
How else did we get a million kiddy karate places and strip mall dojos catering to people who only punch air?
I'm just being honest, a lot of those types try boxing for a day and never return, it gets too real.
Yeah but Frank Dux tried to get away with something similar and was proven a fraud, and that's a pretty objective statement.
There are a huge number of people in the world who claim to train banned techniques ancient secrets etc. but then you put them in a basic kickboxing or grappling match and they are finished fast.
That's not the rulesets limiting anything. Blood flows freely in most UFC matches, limbs get broken, etc.
But there is a fantasist crowd out there today that still believes in no touch KOs, death touches, and things like Ip Man movies showcase actual fighting. Now that last one is a great example, I like Ip Man movies and Donnie Yen, but even he will tell you they are fantasy, and to really meld the TMA you need to have an MMA mindset. I think he even said that in an interview once.
windwalker099
3rd Black Belt
Don't know about most, nor really care...it's their practice..
Feel people know how to fight, more like a matter of need and level of fighting...
We live in an age where there are many things that people are no longer aware of because it's doesn't affect them.
War for example..
Used to work with a guy who was supposed to fight Jeff Smith" light heavy in what was called "full contact" back in the day.
My Friend in the military SSG Brown, if memory serves me, trained with those in the "White Horse" 백마부대 South Korean division in Vietnam.
Pretty tuff dude, he used Tang Soo Do 당수도, mixed with hapki-do 합기도
at the time..
ap Oweyn
Brown Belt
I agree that it's a false dichotomy. The question isn't really "traditional v. MMA," though there are plenty of people in both camp who feel that it is. But, as someone who appreciates the technical approach of one and the value system of the other, I don't see that. I see a call for proof of concept. "Show me." It FEELS like an attack on traditional martial arts because it's out of keeping with the hierarchical nature of Confucian-based societies perhaps. It's much more of a skepticism-based approach. But that's not inherently wrong. It's embedded in a lot of thinking, Western or otherwise. "I'm willing to believe a thing if you show me why I should."
In the early years of UFC, the idea of high kicks felt ludicrous. But, to Steve's point upthread (and it's a brilliant point), it's not just a question of MMA suddenly getting what TMA was saying all along. Those people who brought those TMA influences to MMA were responsible for showing the MMA crowd what could be done with the right training and necessary adaptations.
High kicks were laughed at until Maurice Smith started landing them reliably. Who's laughing now? Capoeira was far fetched until a fighter knocked his opponent out with that spinning kick the name of which I've forgotten. Lyoto Machida championed karate. Etc. But, in each case, individuals came forward and said "watch this."
I think some of the flak TMA exponents get in these discussions is down to the idea of saying "so-and-so did this in the past" or "this worked on the ancient battlefields of ____." But they're speaking to an audience who want to see it done. And if they can see it done, they're willing to embrace it.
I'm not an MMA guy. At all. But my experience with MMA folks has been that they're open minded if you're willing to walk the walk. Even if it doesn't work, you'll often be respected for your willingness to set aside "knowing" and embrace "testing."
That, to my mind, is the value of the MMA approach, though I freely admit that I don't feel at home in the MMA culture.
In the early years of UFC, the idea of high kicks felt ludicrous. But, to Steve's point upthread (and it's a brilliant point), it's not just a question of MMA suddenly getting what TMA was saying all along. Those people who brought those TMA influences to MMA were responsible for showing the MMA crowd what could be done with the right training and necessary adaptations.
High kicks were laughed at until Maurice Smith started landing them reliably. Who's laughing now? Capoeira was far fetched until a fighter knocked his opponent out with that spinning kick the name of which I've forgotten. Lyoto Machida championed karate. Etc. But, in each case, individuals came forward and said "watch this."
I think some of the flak TMA exponents get in these discussions is down to the idea of saying "so-and-so did this in the past" or "this worked on the ancient battlefields of ____." But they're speaking to an audience who want to see it done. And if they can see it done, they're willing to embrace it.
I'm not an MMA guy. At all. But my experience with MMA folks has been that they're open minded if you're willing to walk the walk. Even if it doesn't work, you'll often be respected for your willingness to set aside "knowing" and embrace "testing."
That, to my mind, is the value of the MMA approach, though I freely admit that I don't feel at home in the MMA culture.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
Anyone ever met someone who only trains forms and basics?
- Latest: Prince_Alarming
