Traditional or MMA preference

[MJS]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
I study Seven Star Preying Mantis Kung Fu, but yet some of our beginner forms we learn are Wah Lum. A few of my Sifu's sidai spent many years studying Eagle Claw and one Hung Gar, so we get to incorporate some of those systems as well in our learning. Is that MMA, I don't think so, I still view it as traditional. I guess I would say then that my traditional discipline would be Kung Fu and in that case, no I would not recommend cross training. There is so much in Kung Fu that I could study for the rest of my life and not even get close to learning it all.

I know nothing about the Kung Fu styles that you are studying, so please feel free to explain further if needed. If some of your Inst are studying Eagle Claw and another Hung Gar, and they are incorporating some of those tech. into your 7star Mantis system, isn't that in effect a way of crosstraining? You are basically doing what I have been suggesting. The only difference is, is that I take all the heat from it. While you are not changing styles, you are in a way, adding things from other systems into your own. I have said to take some principles of BJJ and add them to Kenpo, and people look at me like I have 2 heads. I have never said to stop a base art and start another. All I said was to take the ideas from the others and add them to your own bag.

MJS

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski
I study MMA, and voted for TMA.

Why?


It's like 99% of the New Age nonsense out there ... few of those people really know any of the disciplines they borrow from, and then mix yoga and chi kung in a blender and think they have something worth passing on. On rare occassion they do, but it's ussually by accident and misleads future generations into thinking they have any clue what the deeper understandings of these things are.

TMA does not guarantee quality, and has drawback, yes, but MMA almost guarantees that every clown has his own style based on his limited "half-a-generation" expereience of what he thinks works.

The few that work, such as Parker, Tegner, JKD, et alia, then almost become their own TMA over time, but with more openmindedness for evolution. Truly nice in principle. But again, the openmindedness is only as good as the wisdom of each generation, and it can easily degrade into a rejection of things that "don't work" because the understanding of them was lost.

Your blender theory.-
The flaw in it is that MMA'ers are not labeling their art as a martial art, in line along with the traditional martial arts. Their art is theirs, not the TMA'ers and personally I see 19 yearolds coming up faster, more well rounded and overall better all around fighters and can kick the crap out of the average young black belt of the same age group.

What you failed to address is who their instructors are and why do their instructors choose to teach this way. Martial arts originally was offense and defense fighting systems based on the times which evolved along with the times.

These you fighters coming up are not alone in the world. They have great instructors who before them had great instructors. If that same 19 year old begins teaching and he only has 2 years teaching without the guidance of his instructors. Then yes, no matter how good of a fighter he is, his ability to pass on something of worth will be limited.

But that same 19 year old begins teaching on his own say around the age of 28, then you're analagy is false, in my opinion. As far their understanding, that comes with time, it evolves as does the arts. But the arts that aren't evolving along with the rest of the world will surely continue to do one thing, knock the arts that are evolving.

I'm not saying that all arts must change. We all have are base disciplines. Just be open to the possible additions to our arts while not losing the respect of our instructors. Most arts judge high ranks partially on the contributions to the art.

Wouldn't a major contribution to our arts be the fact that we've addressed the issues of why the young fighters are more well rounded and overall better fighters at such a young age?

This is all just food for thought and isn't meant to step on anybodys feet in the least. I have a true example the will give a little lite to my thinking.

My brother in law is one of my former instructors. He is a pure traditionalist. Although is a former undefeated professional kickboxer and he is ranked in Karate, Judo/Jujutsu. Aikido, Kobujutsu and Kumiuchi under the late Tarow "Tai" Hayashi of El Paso, Texas. He has a great understanding of the arts and winning a fight.

I teach a few of my nephews and he's charted out his boys (one of them my Godson) martial future. A long story, short. By the time they are 18 or so, they will have a good foundation but they will learn each art separately (the way he teaches) without the advantage of knowing the similarities in the arts. He's named all the techniques that I am not to ever expose them to because he has that planned based on using their as aguide for when they will be exposed to what.

He may prove me wrong but I feel that his boys too, will be behind (as a fighter).

Sorry about the rambling on. I'm just a firm beleiver of the evolution of ourselves as martial artists. I do teach and train traditional arts but my focus is based on my experiences and not on what I think a student should learn because he's to young.

In the long run, they will get it all. They just don't have to "eat all of their vegetables first to get to the meat and potatoes."

:asian:

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by akja
... We all have are base disciplines. ...

Everything you say is true for the circumstances you are referring to -- I can't disagree with your views. But just as some TMA schools lose touch with combat reality, your above quote is simply not true.

Many MMAs are belt collectors and nothing more. They stay long enough to buy a black belt from one art, and get honorary belts for taking a frew lessons in other ones, then start their own RECOGNIZED form of karate. I've seen this happen with the (late) owner of a local "Black Belt School of the Year". This is bullsh*t. Someone with a 4th degree will take someone with a half-dozen 1st degree black belts anyday. In fact, his wife was just that and showed a lot more skill than he did.

However, there are people who after a year or two of MMA training can take on anyone less than a black belt in any system. Not bragging, but I was one of those. But could I take a 6th degree after training for years without a focused foundation in at least one art? I don't know. I just might get my but kicked.

I think maybe it's a learning curve issue. Early on, TMA is at a disadvantage, then the reverse is true as the years of training go on (assuming the best and not worst of these schools). I think it's about methodology more than technique.

But all we can shoot around is opinions and theory because every case is different, and we both probably have countless observations showing one way or the other.

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski
Everything you say is true for the circumstances you are referring to -- I can't disagree with your views. But just as some TMA schools lose touch with combat reality, your above quote is simply not true.

Many MMAs are belt collectors and nothing more. They stay long enough to buy a black belt from one art, and get honorary belts for taking a frew lessons in other ones, then start their own RECOGNIZED form of karate. I've seen this happen with the (late) owner of a local "Black Belt School of the Year". This is bullsh*t. Someone with a 4th degree will take someone with a half-dozen 1st degree black belts anyday. In fact, his wife was just that and showed a lot more skill than he did.

However, there are people who after a year or two of MMA training can take on anyone less than a black belt in any system. Not bragging, but I was one of those. But could I take a 6th degree after training for years without a focused foundation in at least one art? I don't know. I just might get my but kicked.

I think maybe it's a learning curve issue. Early on, TMA is at a disadvantage, then the reverse is true as the years of training go on (assuming the best and not worst of these schools). I think it's about methodology more than technique.

But all we can shoot around is opinions and theory because every case is different, and we both probably have countless observations showing one way or the other.

Good points. I don't think that a 2 tear MMA'er is that much advanced over the young black belts, just more well rounded.

My brother in law is a 6th Dan and I'm a 5th Dan. He's in a well deserved position of high standing with no desire to promote any further. I don't see myself as his equal or even close. But I have evolved after walking my own path for many years.

I focus on what I believe is my truth in martial arts and I at the same time have 3 traditional instructors in 4 traitional martial arts. I too have taken on 2 more instructors in Escrima.

Hope to read more from you in hear!:asian:

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by akja
.... But I have evolved after walking my own path for many years.

I focus on what I believe is my truth in martial arts and I at the same time have 3 traditional instructors in 4 traitional martial arts. ...

I totally respect that.

If you're ever in the Buffalo area, you are welcome to tea.

:asian: :asian:

 

[J-kid]

MMA is the way of complete un-armed combat....

 

[MJS]

In BJJ, there are half the belts in a regular art--white, blue, purple, brown, black. I would put any amount of money on the BJJ guy that is a purple belt against a 1st or 2nd degree BB in any other style. And the reason for this, is that they both train differently. It makes no difference if one is a stand up art and the other is ground based. The training is so much different between TMA and MMA.

MJS

 

[DAC..florida]

I feel that one does need a solid base from a traditional style and should continue to train in that style, but adding some MMA training is always a compliment to any "traditional style".
:asian:

 

[twinkletoes]

I agree that TMA'ers benefit tremendously from MMA training.


I think it's interesting that a couple of you have suggested that people should have a base in TMA before launching into MMA. Can you articulate why you think that's necessary? What makes that preferable to beginning in MMA from the start? (I'm genuinely curious why you might say that).

(I want to clarify that I mean before going into MMA, not before crosstraining in multiple TMA. I understand why you should become proficient in one TMA before launching into another).


Also, those of you who feel that way, do you consider any of the following TMA?

Boxing, Kickboxing, Muay Thai, Judo, BJJ or San Shou?

Thanks,

~TT

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by DAC..florida
I feel that one does need a solid base from a traditional style and should continue to train in that style, but adding some MMA training is always a compliment to any "traditional style".
:asian:

Does the base really have to be from a traditioanal art?

How about the olympic wrestlers who are doing great as MMA'ers? How about a boxer making a transition to MMA's?

Those are sure not traditional martial arts. Some say they are martial arts but they are no way traditional.

:asian:

 

[streetwise]

"If you find something in the curriculum to which your answer is "because that's the way I learned it" or "that's the way my teacher said to do it" then Congratulations! You practice a TMA! "


Well, by this definition...Congratulation! Most boxers, kickboxers, BJJ pratitioner, wrestlers, JKD guys, etc. are now defined as praticing Traditional Martial Arts! I know on MY HS wrestling team, you damn well better be doing the way coach said!

Seriously, the division is arbitrary and misleading, traditionally, my Kung Fu style grapples, boxes and competes full contact. For 100 years we have encouraged instructors to add/subtract/alter what they teach to suit the times, individual teacher skills, and student needs. Some of our Sifu teach a very gentle system, since they have many elderly students who are not really up to a lot of kickboxing, other Sifu teach BJJ and train in kickboxing themselves. The so-called McDojos are not traditional, they pretty much cropped up in the last 30-40 years, many of the styles calling themselves traditional are barely 50 years old (if that).

 

[KanoLives]

I'm not to sure why anyone would want to just get a black belt in one art and then run to another art and start to study that. I only speak for my school but once you get a black belt in my school you might actually just start learning the art. Why leave if you haven't even begun to learn the art? It just doesn't make sense to me. Do other schools just teach you the whole art until black belt then after that it's just review for the rest of your life? Someone please help understand this.

:asian:

 

[MJS]

Thats correct! Once you reach BB, the journey does not come to and end, it seems like it starts all over again! Once you reach the higher levels of BB, it turns into more of going back over the material, making sure that you have an understanding of it and really looking at the tech. and what it is teaching you. If you look at how Mr. Parker broke down each tech. with such a detailed desc. it is really amazing as to what you are learning. He also talks about the "what ifs" that are also very important to look at.

So, why change if there is so much more to go? Why not stay and continue to explore the other things that there are to explore? Is there something that is lacking in your current style that you want to learn? Do you feel that what you have learned is not going to be effective? The list can go on and on and on and on. This is a question that only each individual person can answer.

For me, I saw the ground fighting craze in the 90's, and wanted to see what it was like. I remember training with my grappling Inst. In the first lesson, he got me in the mounted position and ask me to get out. As hard as i tried, I could not remove him from me. It was then that I realized and said to myself, "I want to learn this stuff!" That was many years ago, and I'm still grappling. I was also introduced to Modern Arnis. I saw how deadly this art was. With the many things that you can do with the stick, and the joint locks, and how easily things could be applied to empty hand, I was amazed.

Cross training is not for everyone. Some people are all for it, while others are against it. It all depends on the person. But if someone decides to do it, that is their choice.

Mike

 

[DAC..florida]

Originally posted by twinkletoes
I agree that TMA'ers benefit tremendously from MMA training.


I think it's interesting that a couple of you have suggested that people should have a base in TMA before launching into MMA. Can you articulate why you think that's necessary? What makes that preferable to beginning in MMA from the start? (I'm genuinely curious why you might say that).

(I want to clarify that I mean before going into MMA, not before crosstraining in multiple TMA. I understand why you should become proficient in one TMA before launching into another).


Also, those of you who feel that way, do you consider any of the following TMA?

Boxing, Kickboxing, Muay Thai, Judo, BJJ or San Shou?

Thanks,

~TT

I feel that it is necessary because one should have a full understanding of the traditional values and traditions of the arts, most MMA I know dont teach the traditions and origin of the arts they teach self defence alone.

Do I consider the above styles as traditional, No because most of these styles get thier techniques from some other system, not saying theres anything wrong with them.

 

[DAC..florida]

Originally posted by akja
Does the base really have to be from a traditioanal art?

How about the olympic wrestlers who are doing great as MMA'ers? How about a boxer making a transition to MMA's?

Those are sure not traditional martial arts. Some say they are martial arts but they are no way traditional.

:asian:

If you can find a MMA that teaches a good base ( striking, blocking, redirecting, balance ect.) than no the base doesnt have to be from TMA.

I agree that boxers, wrestlers, submission ect. are great and some do have a good base others do not.
:asian:

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by DAC..florida
If you can find a MMA that teaches a good base ( striking, blocking, redirecting, balance ect.) than no the base doesnt have to be from TMA.

I agree that boxers, wrestlers, submission ect. are great and some do have a good base others do not.
:asian:

Yea, my Sifu has trained under his father for like 35 years, since he was 8 years old. Now he has his own interpetation too. He is almost another category too because they are not tradional except for the fact that they teach their version of the "original JKD" and not the concepts. I think we can go on.

:asian:

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

TMA, for better and worse, TEND TO HAVE a more rigid methodology due to cultural background, but this rigidness can be found in MMA and vice versa, and so is not a good distinction by itself.

How about this distinction ...

TMA are those passed down in such a way that they can be traced back from master to master to their point of origin, geographically and otherwise, and the overall style is recognizable between all generations.

MMA can BECOME TMA if the art stays in the same "style" over one or more generations, regardless of dilution or evolution -- the basic principles stay the same.

However, the premise behind MMA seems to be the individual instead of the style, and evolution takes precedence over preservation, and therefore some are less likely to ever become TMA. Those as such are not styles at all, as is the case for true JKD as intended by Bruce Lee.


Me? I study Traditional-STYLE martial arts, but would never claim to be studying (or teaching) true TMA. Psychologically, I am more suited for MMA, but wish I had more TMA training.

 

[twinkletoes]

Originally posted by DAC..florida
I feel that it is necessary because one should have a full understanding of the traditional values and traditions of the arts, most MMA I know dont teach the traditions and origin of the arts they teach self defence alone.

Well, the obvious follow up question here is "Why do you feel it is necessary to have a full understanding of the 'traditional values and traditions of the arts'?"

And second to that, while MMA practice doesn't often include "lessons" of this variety, does anyone believe that MMAers do/don't learn the same things? Which lessons do you think they learn more of? Which do you think they learn less of?

Just keepin' the conversation going, because I really am interested.

~TT

 

[KennethKu]

In the military, we don't pay a rat *** attention to what is "traditional" vs what is not. Old strategies, old tactics, new tactics, new strategies, all are fair. We don't piss this or that away because "it does not belong to our style". Whatever that brings victory in battle, is studied and adopted. It is ridiculous that when it comes to martial arts, you have amateurs spliting hair on WHAT they ought to learn or hold on to.

"Take what is useful and discard the rest." It is important to study other arts, but not to get hold up in them. Some people study one art and declare that it is "the way", "the truth". Well, you ought to know by now that, there is no one, single "truth" or single "way". All arts, at the master level, are more or less the same, in terms of competency. But on your way to achieve that level of competency, you have to absorb a lot of the crap and junk that the founders, in their flawed wisdom, have thrown in there with the rest of the goodies. ( Yeah yeah , I know. This might piss off those who worship their founders or GM as infallable when it comes to their martial art. Tough. ) If you can filter out the junk, and get at the goodies, you would learn a lot faster, and do not have to put up with the "time in rank" sort of BS.

Another person posted something about MMA being just another term for "free for all, garden variety mix of Jack of all trades" type salad bowl of half baked martial art. I tend to agree. That is why you have little soke-dokey jumping in with their own "style" , looking for a piece of the action.

People say the biggest problem in the MA community is the lack of integrity. That is true is all trades and industries. But in the MA community, we got what we deserve if we don't police ourselves and put with up with soke-dokey.

Enuff :soapbox:

What's the topic again?

 

[A.R.K.]

In high liability professions such as the military, law enforcement, corrections, E.P. and high level security there is the very high probability that force may be called on in any given day. A much higher probability than most citizens. Do these high liability professionals use TMA's or MMA's?

For the most part it is MMA's. And for a very good reason, it works in real combat. It is easier to learn in a shorter period of time. Time translates to money in the world. Money that is often lacking from budgets. Soldiers, Deputies, Officers, Troopers and Agents need to learn the most useful techniques and tactics in the shortest amount of time.

Sir Peter Boatman is a prime example. His Edged weapons Instructor course last only two days. That is TWO days! Yet it is so simple and highly effective that officer injuries dropped from 87% to 16% after implimentation. So effective was the simply techniques that officers only required a refresher every 18 months rather than the standard 12. Thus a savings in man power, funds and most importantly officers lives. He was knighted by the queen of England becasue of it.

If it is an 'art' one desires, then TMA's are fantastic. If solid self defense in a reasonable amount of time then MMA's.

Doesn't matter who's name is attached to the discipline as long as it works!

:asian: