Traditional or MMA preference

[KennethKu]

Let's don't over-hype MA in the military or LEO. In the west, the elite military units hardly pay much attention to MA training. (Although some sokey dokey in the BlackBelt mag would like you to believe otherwise.)

The uninformed tend to fascinate the military and the police as super martial artists. The truth is, most of the troops and the LEO's cannot fight their way out of a donut bag, without their weapons and backup. The cops learn a few tricks about how to handle a drunk or unruly enraged punks. That is not the same as being an MA expert. (May be that makes them MMA experts then. lol )

The western elite fighting units spend 99% of their training effort on weapons training.

Only the elite units of Asian countries pay serious attention to MA training. And quess what, they all study their respective national arts. TKD, KT or MT. Only that the military study the combat versions. The elite units of Korea (both North and South), Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, China, all are experts in their national MA.

 

[twinkletoes]

I think we're starting to speak the same words and mean different things. I propose the following terminology, so that this discussion doesn't become confused:

Eclectic MA: a single discipline or method that is taught with a specific curriculum drawn from different sources. It is still a TMA, but it contains information from a mix of different arts. This is what most self-made soke are preaching.

MMA: a training regimen specific to "ultimate fighting" "vale tudo" or "MMA" events. It is a specific set of skills relevant to competitive practice including standing, clinch, and groundfighting, including strikes, standup and ground control, and submissions.


"E"MA are just newfangled TMA, with new names to stroke some new soke's ego. MMA is a sport-specific training method, which *just happens* to be about the best way to prepare yourself for hand-to-hand combat of any kind, be it sport or self-defense.

~TT

 

[A.R.K.]

The uninformed tend to fascinate the military and the police as super martial artists.

I'm not sure anyone has tried to portray either the military or police as super martial artists in this thread. Quite the contrary it has been the opposite. For example S.E.P.S.I. reguarly brings in many elite people and groups for officers to take courses from. But they definately fall into the MMD end of the spectrum. Perhaps other countries employ traditional training and forms, the western cultures do not.

My point is that the high liability groups gravitate much more towards MMD because of it's combat effectiveness and the shorter duration of training. It simply works.

The truth is, most of the troops and the LEO's cannot fight their way out of a donut bag, without their weapons and backup.

I would like to see your research in this area that justifies this statement. High liability professionals are much more likely on any given duty day to utilize physical means to control/defeat a subject. Happens thousands of times each day just in this country alone. To say most cannot fight is a rather over simplistic and inaccurate opinion, not something based in fact. Yes some are not good in a fight. Some are not in the shape they could be. But people are people.

I would put the average Detention Deputy with some S.E.P.S.I. training against the average BB any day. Why? Because chances are the average BB hasn't been in a real fight outside the playground and trains in an unrealistic art. Whereas the average DD has probably had to put his hands on real BG's in lawful uses-of-force numerous times in his career. Experience over theory.

The cops learn a few tricks about how to handle a drunk or unruly enraged punks

No, officers learn sound Defensive Tactics covering a variety of situations including drunks which btw can be one of the most dangerous individuals to fight. The first is a tie between an MDP and a drug user. There are no 'tricks' to it.

The western elite fighting units spend 99% of their training effort on weapons training.

And your documentation to back this up would be??? True, much time is spent on weapons training, but not 99%. Hand to hand combat is a good part, jump training, scuba training, tracking, wilderness survival etc etc. Depends largely on the elite unit and their mission as to how they train.

Which goes directly back to my original point: High liability professionals need what will work the best in the least amount of time. There is simply no time or money for unnessasary frills.

I await your factual data that supports your above conclusions.

:asian:

 

[A.R.K.]

I would add that my comments above should in no way be taken to disrespect BB's in any art or discipline. The point being only in actual, realistic experience a DD, trooper, Deptuy, Officer etc has a higher likelyhood of actually using their training...more often...and in more serious situations.

:asian:

 

[Jotaro Joestar]

In my opinion the only problem that TMA's have with not being able to adapt to any situation is in the Instructer not training their students to be able to, and the student not able to make a transition of the application to a new one. If you only train applications of your forms standing up, then you will mostly only be able to fight/defend standing up. Just because the forms are performed on your feet, does not mean that they can not be applied to ground techniques. Either the Instructer does not have a good enough understanding of all the possible applications of every part of each form, is closed minded, or is saving it for later. You have to train in different situations to be proficient in different situations. That does not mean that TMA are incomplete, they just are not being adapted in practice to all situations. A form without disecting all possible applications is not complete.

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by Jotaro Joestar
In my opinion the only problem that TMA's have with not being able to adapt to any situation is in the Instructer not training their students to be able to, and the student not able to make a transition of the application to a new one. ... A form without disecting all possible applications is not complete.

Nice. I'm glad someone brought this out.

 

[zen_hydra]

In my opinion the only problem that TMA's have with not being able to adapt to any situation is in the Instructer not training their students to be able to, and the student not able to make a transition of the application to a new one. If you only train applications of your forms standing up, then you will mostly only be able to fight/defend standing up. Just because the forms are performed on your feet, does not mean that they can not be applied to ground techniques. Either the Instructer does not have a good enough understanding of all the possible applications of every part of each form, is closed minded, or is saving it for later. You have to train in different situations to be proficient in different situations. That does not mean that TMA are incomplete, they just are not being adapted in practice to all situations. A form without disecting all possible applications is not complete.

I agree with this completely. So many TMA are currently being thought of as incomplete. Many TMA's are considered to be solely standing/striking disciplines, when in fact, they were developed to be able to deal with all aspects of hand-to-hand combat at the time that they were created. Wrestling, in its many forms, is the worlds oldest fighting art (cave painting old), it spans culture, and the globe. If kung fu, and karate, and all the myriad other fighting arts developed in the same world in which wrestling already existed, then for it to be effective at all it would have to have a way to deal with grappling/clinching/ground fighters. I am sure that it is the teachers and not the curriculum of most TMA's that are failing their students. By not learning to apply their fighting skills to all appropriate situations, these students have been set up for failure.

 

[twinkletoes]

You guys have hit on 2 important things.

1) How you train is more important that "what's included" in the curriculum.

The method of training makes the differences in the effectiveness of an individual.

Following from this, you have started to hint that:

2) What you train should be directly applicable when using realistic training methods.

Form should follow function, and curriculum should reinforce the training methods.

What you train comes from how you train it.

~TT

 

[Jotaro Joestar]

Originally posted by twinkletoes
You guys have hit on 2 important things.

1) How you train is more important that "what's included" in the curriculum.

The method of training makes the differences in the effectiveness of an individual.

Following from this, you have started to hint that:

2) What you train should be directly applicable when using realistic training methods.

Form should follow function, and curriculum should reinforce the training methods.

What you train comes from how you train it.

~TT

Is how you train more important than what's included in the curriculum? Yes and no. Is it more important than progressing to the next belt/sash/cert. without a full understanding of all possible applications, yes. But that does not mean that you can't continue learning new material and still work on new applications from forms you have learned earlier. You need the forms to have the necessary material to draw from. If you always react the same way(s) to an attack, then it will not take long to be beaten.

The training should not be just what you think is realistic. If you are training to be able to adapt yourself in any situation, then you should train in impractical situations as well. Such as if you want to be able to fight great inside a 5' diameter culvert, then you should train in a 5' diameter culvert. Will you most likely ever be in a situation to have to fight in one, probably not, but you will be more prepared if you ever have to fight in one.

Forms do follow function, but it is up to you to apply and think beyond a tangent. Follow the circle.

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by Jotaro Joestar
Is how you train more important than what's included in the curriculum? Yes and no. Is it more important than progressing to the next belt/sash/cert. without a full understanding of all possible applications, yes. But that does not mean that you can't continue learning new material and still work on new applications from forms you have learned earlier. You need the forms to have the necessary material to draw from. If you always react the same way(s) to an attack, then it will not take long to be beaten.

The training should not be just what you think is realistic. If you are training to be able to adapt yourself in any situation, then you should train in impractical situations as well. Such as if you want to be able to fight great inside a 5' diameter culvert, then you should train in a 5' diameter culvert. Will you most likely ever be in a situation to have to fight in one, probably not, but you will be more prepared if you ever have to fight in one.

Forms do follow function, but it is up to you to apply and think beyond a tangent. Follow the circle.

You're right! Will we ever be able to prepare for every situation? Probably not. But, we can definately do our best to train in a realistic fashion. Thats one of the reasons I love to train outdoors and in street clothes. Sometimes I'll work out in jeans. It makes a big differerence due to the fact that they are not as loose fitting as gi pants. Do we wear gi pants all the time? No. People always talk about kicks. Ok, I'd like to see the female TKD student who has super high kicks in the dojo, throw those very same kicks wearing heels. What is she going to say, "Wait a min. Mr. attacker while I take my shoes off so I can kick your *** better."LOL-- adapting is definately a big part of training that is often over looked.

Mike

 

[twinkletoes]

Jotaro Joestar,

I agree with some of your post. However, I have a big problem with something you've said. Please don't take this as anything personal or hostile, but I need to make a strong point.

Originally posted by Jotaro Joestar
You need the forms to have the necessary material to draw from.

I reject this outright. They are one method of codifying information. They are a tool, and an unreliable one.

Different people interpret different applications from the same movements--whose is correct? Are they both correct? If all reasonable interpretations are correct, then it doesn't matter what you draw the interpretations from--they could be taken from dance or gymnastics routines, since those might contain similar movements.

Some people use forms as a guide to motion. They use it as a template for discussing different actions of the body. If that is the style of teaching that works for you, then use it. However, it is far from necessary.

Here is a short list of effective combat athletes that do not use forms: Boxers, Kickboxers, Wrestlers, BJJ'ers, MMA'ers, and Muay Thai or Savate practitioners. This is by no means an exhaustive list.

None of the above studies include forms, and yet all of the practitioners of the above methods have no trouble applying their art, especially in an alive environment with a freely uncooperative opponent. Their training method is based on developing the timing and distancing to build tactics that overcome resistance. Again, it is not the curriculum, but the training method.

And who is going to tell a boxer that he has not sufficiently explored the applications of his jab? How silly would that be? "Have you tried throwing the jab when they come at you from the side?" "Have you tried throwing the jab wearing jeans?" It becomes silliness.

Develop a delivery system, through alive training. From there, add whatever additional moves you feel you need. To loosely quote Matt Thornton, "You take someone and teach him an eyepoke. You have him practice eyepoke drills with a partner, or do forms with eyepokes. I'm gonna take someone with 3 months of amateur boxing experience and teach him an eyepoke, and you'd better keep your hands in front of your face."

~TT

 

[Jotaro Joestar]

By "You need the forms to have the necessary material to draw from. " I was referring to TMA training in regards to training over curriculum progression.

 

[rmcrobertson]

It seems perfectly reasonable, to me, to adopt these methods of learning to fight. After all, they are perfectly in keeping with the rack of fantasies that the rest of our culture promotes, and they certainly will promote an efficient fighting. Or in other words, it's exactly the same issue as "Jurassic Park."

Oh, and incidentally, folks like Matt Thornton have the luxury of teaching very athletic students who want to fight. Their success doesn't necessarily say a thing about the superiority of their methods of teaching.

 

[twinkletoes]

Robert,

If you talk with Matt Thornton or more closely read about his school, he has over 600 students in Oregon. The majority of them do not compete, nor are they atheletes. Of his 600, he has less than 10 that compete (I want to say 7 but I confess to not remembering exactly).

Matt said something like this about conditioning: "To do this you need to be in some kind of shape so you don't hurt yourself. Now, this isn't the same as being a competitor--you need to be in good shape for that. But if you came to me and said 'Matt, I want to play pick-up games of basketball 3 says a week,' I would say 'You need to get yourself in some kind of shape so you don't hurt yourself."

Have you trained at an SBG affiliate, or at their seminars? You will see very quickly, if you get the opportunity, that they have something very real to offer everyone.

Jotaro Joestar,

Taken in that context I understand. Unqualified statements like that just irk me

~TT

 

[rmcrobertson]

OK, more than fair enough. But I will bet that, at best, his average student works out to about what the average student works out to where I presently train.

I'm just not interested in all this cross-training. Among other things, a) I barely have time and energy for what I'm presently doing, b) I've only been training 12 years or so, and I'm nowhere near "mastering," what I am at present studying, c) despite all the yelling, it simply isn't necessary for me.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[twinkletoes]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I'm just not interested in all this cross-training. Among other things, a) I barely have time and energy for what I'm presently doing, b) I've only been training 12 years or so, and I'm nowhere near "mastering," what I am at present studying, c) despite all the yelling, it simply isn't necessary for me.

That is perhaps one of the most sensible posts I've heard defending the position not to crosstrain. Simple, to the point, rhetoric free....I can totally respect that. Good post.

~TT

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
... I'm just not interested in all this cross-training. Among other things, a) I barely have time and energy for what I'm presently doing, b) I've only been training 12 years or so, and I'm nowhere near "mastering," what I am at present studying...

You know how someone's always asking "Does anybody know any good schools near me?"

Here's a tougher one ...

"Are there any schools around where I live that I can personally believe in enough to train for MORE than a few years?"

I would venture to say that without even realizing it, most of us cross-train because we have no other choice.

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by Jotaro Joestar
By "You need the forms to have the necessary material to draw from. " I was referring to TMA training in regards to training over curriculum progression.

Forms are a living archive of a system's techniques and applications. By themselves, you can't even "master" a form, because there will be little understanding. But when put in context of the whole system, the forms can be useful -- if not vital -- to learning it properly and consistently between people and generations.

Of course, they will evolve, and watching a person's forms will tell you what lineage or sub-style of something they train in. It is a definitave mark of the identity of a TCMA.

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski
You know how someone's always asking "Does anybody know any good schools near me?"

Here's a tougher one ...

"Are there any schools around where I live that I can personally believe in enough to train for MORE than a few years?"

I would venture to say that without even realizing it, most of us cross-train because we have no other choice.

Good point Ken! We all train for different reasons, we all have different goals, and what works for one, might not work for another. But, for those of us that do want to really learn to defend ourselves, we need to find a school or person that addresses this. Alot of schools around focus on the sport aspect of the arts, which is fine, if thats what you want. Alot of places dont really emphasize 'combat' because they dont want to lose a student if there is too much contact, or the class is too hard or rough, etc. One thing that everybody that signs up for lessons should realize, is that even in a sport oriented school, there will be some degree of contact. If people are too afraid of the contact, maybe they should take up sewing! The worse that can happen there is that you get pricked by the needle!

Mike

 

[DAC..florida]

Originally posted by MJS
Good point Ken! We all train for different reasons, we all have different goals, and what works for one, might not work for another. But, for those of us that do want to really learn to defend ourselves, we need to find a school or person that addresses this. Alot of schools around focus on the sport aspect of the arts, which is fine, if thats what you want. Alot of places dont really emphasize 'combat' because they dont want to lose a student if there is too much contact, or the class is too hard or rough, etc. One thing that everybody that signs up for lessons should realize, is that even in a sport oriented school, there will be some degree of contact. If people are too afraid of the contact, maybe they should take up sewing! The worse that can happen there is that you get pricked by the needle!

Mike

WOW!
I couldnt of said it better myself. The only thing I would add is that if thier afraid of to much rough contact maybe ballet dancing would be a better choice.:rofl: