Traditional vs MMA

[Ybot]

Shrewsbury, I want to point out that though you may not have meant offence, there are comments in your arguement that are offensive.

This topic always amazes me. it goes back to my dad is bigger than yours, my brother can beat up your brother.

Really?

I am guessing most of you are young or relativly new to the arts and or enfluenced by testosterone and the "my dad can beat your dad" mentality. I have been there and though it will not help you, i can honestly say your opinions and ideas will change with time, beating some one up may sound cool, but is just a foolish act of some one who needs to prove themselves, and the sad things it proves nothing.

I can deal with the rest of your arguement because it is actually dealing with the martial arts in question, and questioning their effectiveness in certain situations. But these quoted statements are about the character of the MMA practicioner rather than the art it's self. While these statements may be true of some MMA practitioners, I would also like to point out that the same motivation can be applied to a lot of TMAers.

 

[funnytiger]

Shrewsbury, I want to point out that though you may not have meant offence, there are comments in your arguement that are offensive.

Really?

I can deal with the rest of your arguement because it is actually dealing with the martial arts in question, and questioning their effectiveness in certain situations. But these quoted statements are about the character of the MMA practicioner rather than the art it's self. While these statements may be true of some MMA practitioners, I would also like to point out that the same motivation can be applied to a lot of TMAers.

What statements did he make about other MMA practicioners that could have been construed as offensive remarks??

 

[tradrockrat]

A few points if I may:

1. Anyone who is willing to make final statements about "TMA's" effectiveness while simultaneously grouping all arts other than "MMA" into "TMA" is not really worth listening to. To put Jiu Jitsu into the same catagory as Escrima and link both to TKD is pretty ludicrous. What you're really saying is that in MMA competitions, MMA does better than various other MA's. But wouldn't that make sense? It is a MMA event after all. I imagine professional football players will do better in the NFL than Cal Ripkin. I imagine that Olympic TKD atheletes will perform better in their sport than an olympic wrestler would. Can we all at least agree on that? If so, then the next thing to look at is...

2. ...the assertion about self defense. This one frosts my - well, you get the idea - History is full of stories about successful self defense encounters in all MA's. In fact MMA has been around for such a short time that I bet there are THOUSANDS more true stories out there about Kung Fu working effectively. It all comes down to the quality of instruction, and the quality of the student.

2. Using one persons fantastic and awesome record in the ring (octagon, cage, whatever...) to prove the dominance of a style is nothing new - but it's still a logical fallacy (your Leaping Tiger is no match for my Iron Palm!)

In the birth of cagefighting, Royce beat people who had trained longer, were substantially larger, stronger, faster, and more physically capable in almost every form than he was. He beat most of them easily because they were utterly unprepared for him. If you watch the MMA videos floating around the internet, many BJJ guys are skinny south americans who have little muscle mass and are tiny compared to some of the people they choke out with ease.

The level of consistancy with which this is done seems to disprove the idea that it is just a few extraordinarly skilled MMAists or BJJers who wipe out everyone else...

In this quote is an excellent example of what I mean. Royce is great. He kicked *** of stronger, better trained guys (Says who? Who trained harder than Royce for these fights? Yeah there were stronger guys - they were the ones that almost beat him despite being outclassed in skill level - Ken Shamrock, Kimo, The Giant killer whats his name, ...just to name a few) And because he did it so well for so long, - now get this - it must be because of his STYLE. Which is BJJ by the way, not MMA.

If that were true, any first year BJJ guy should be able to beat Matt Hughes, right? Oh that's right, Hughs won because Gracie is getting old...

Yeah, whatever.

3. Invariably, once the name calling starts, it comes down to stereotypes. MMA is better cause they're real but all TMA's are just Mc Dojos pretending to teach, but really doing nothing. Black and white, night and day, good and bad.

Life just doesn't work that way. Study and train what you want because you want to - and frankly - try minding your own business if you're not really interested in what the other might have to teach you. Honest questions are only good if you're ready to hear the answer that differs from your own.

4. Personal opinion here - In arguments about the superiority of anything, I am always reminded of a passage in that great textbook Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance . It goes a little like this -

"Nobody runs around shouting that sun will rise tomorrow." In other words, when one is really sure of the truth of something, he doesn't need to shout down the naysayers. He lets the truth speak for itself. It's the ones who have doubts that cause the ruckus.

JMHO

 

[Shrewsbury]

Ybot,

that is why I apologized first, I knew i would not be able to convey in words what my opinion was.

If they offened you I certainly apologize to you or anyone else.

perhaps it is my own prejudice that gives way to those statements. as a punk kid and teen, i though tevery thing was about respect, unfortunatly my idea of respect was encrusted with ego and the need to be tough. some strange circumstances changed that, no not a fight or being beat up, jsust a strange event perhaps better suited for a diferent topic.

when i hear of tough people or fighters, i cringe because i beleive people can be different than that, in my opinion beter.

i truly think mma's people are great, they train hard,condition well, and compete on a dangerous physial level. i also have great respect for pro wrestlers, they train hard, condition well, and compete on a dangerous physical level perhaps not as dangerous as mma's but still dangerous.

i am just saying to claim this as the true way, best way, or only "real" way is demeaning to what they do.

maybe i should shut up because perhaps i am digging a deeper hole.

I agree what i said is in the tma's just as much if not more than in the mma's, and not meant to be a blanket statement of the arts, but rather certain individuals in the arts themsleves.

 

[Rook]

A few points if I may:

1. Anyone who is willing to make final statements about "TMA's" effectiveness while simultaneously grouping all arts other than "MMA" into "TMA" is not really worth listening to.

Hmm. There is also a category called RBSD and then their are untrained fighters, sports fighters from non-MMA systems (like boxers for instance) and fradulent systems.

To put Jiu Jitsu into the same catagory as Escrima and link both to TKD is pretty ludicrous.

Not really. All three have common characteristics of lacking full-contact freestyle sports competition, discussing tradition in some form or another, and doing poorly against Mixed Martial artists.

What you're really saying is that in MMA competitions, MMA does better than various other MA's. But wouldn't that make sense? It is a MMA event after all.

No. That isn't what I'm saying. I have repeatedly drawn attention to fights without rules outside of tournament competition as well as in tournaments. Do all the videos mean nothing? Do all the people that say "well, that isn't really representative of the true expression of our style" have counterexamples? Do any of them?

I imagine professional football players will do better in the NFL than Cal Ripkin. I imagine that Olympic TKD atheletes will perform better in their sport than an olympic wrestler would. Can we all at least agree on that? If so, then the next thing to look at is...

I wouldn't have a problem with that IF and ONLY IF these people won against MMAists outside of tournaments using prohibited techniques or tactics. They don't.

2. ...the assertion about self defense. This one frosts my - well, you get the idea - History is full of stories about successful self defense encounters in all MA's. In fact MMA has been around for such a short time that I bet there are THOUSANDS more true stories out there about Kung Fu working effectively. It all comes down to the quality of instruction, and the quality of the student.

Someone will get lucky sometimes. Some martial arts experiance is better than none. Do you think no smaller untrained fighter has ever knocked out a larger untrained fighter? Good martial arts should only improve their odds. The better the art, the better their chances become.

2. Using one persons fantastic and awesome record in the ring (octagon, cage, whatever...) to prove the dominance of a style is nothing new - but it's still a logical fallacy (your Leaping Tiger is no match for my Iron Palm!)

Thats exactly the point. You can't say just Royce Gracie beat everyone, or Rickson is just really technically skilled and would do well regardless of what he studied etc. when there are people with brief training in MMA or component arts doing well against others. Its not just Royce or Rickson or Hughes or Liddel or Fedor... its not some couple of superathletes who demolish everyone else through sheer athleticism or such. There are simply so many recorded matches between different BJJ, MMA, and component arts fighters and TMAists, RBSD practitioners, untrained fighters etc that I (and many others) see the efficacy of MMA training and elements as a defining factor.

In this quote is an excellent example of what I mean. Royce is great. He kicked *** of stronger, better trained guys (Says who? Who trained harder than Royce for these fights? Yeah there were stronger guys - they were the ones that almost beat him despite being outclassed in skill level - Ken Shamrock, Kimo, The Giant killer whats his name, ...just to name a few) And because he did it so well for so long, - now get this - it must be because of his STYLE. Which is BJJ by the way, not MMA.

I don't think that a with Royce's attributes would have done as well as he did if he had studied another set of styles. Sakuraba ("the gracie killer") who finally beat him decicively was even smaller than Royce and trained in a similar manner. Likewise with Walid Ismail and Hughes - sportsfighters all, with very solid groundwork. These people were not simply outmuscling him - they won on the strenght of their own styles and their own training.

If that were true, any first year BJJ guy should be able to beat Matt Hughes, right?

No. Hughes is also an MMAist, who is in point of fact better both technically and in physicality than Royce.

Oh that's right, Hughs won because Gracie is getting old...

I doubt Royce would have lasted much better if he were younger.

Yeah, whatever.

3. Invariably, once the name calling starts, it comes down to stereotypes. MMA is better cause they're real but all TMA's are just Mc Dojos pretending to teach, but really doing nothing. Black and white, night and day, good and bad.

Not really. There are bad MMA schools and some TMA schools are better than others. However, if you look at who wins full contact fights, you see very consistant patterns emerging. The more you correspond to these patterns, the better your training probably serves you.

Life just doesn't work that way. Study and train what you want because you want to - and frankly - try minding your own business if you're not really interested in what the other might have to teach you. Honest questions are only good if you're ready to hear the answer that differs from your own.

I am an amateur history buff and I love learning about martial arts history. I am, however, not conviced by arguements not backed up on tape or well recorded. There is too much theoretical excuses why something should work, but if no one can make it work, then what does that leave observers to conclude?

4. Personal opinion here - In arguments about the superiority of anything, I am always reminded of a passage in that great textbook Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance . It goes a little like this -

"Nobody runs around shouting that sun will rise tomorrow." In other words, when one is really sure of the truth of something, he doesn't need to shout down the naysayers. He lets the truth speak for itself. It's the ones who have doubts that cause the ruckus.

JMHO

Well, no one is unconvinced that the sun will rise tomorrow. Some people still are unconvinced of other things, and I don't have any fear of informing them of the information I have come across.

 

[MJS]

Not really. All three have common characteristics of lacking full-contact freestyle sports competition, discussing tradition in some form or another, and doing poorly against Mixed Martial artists.

I can't speak for TKD or JJ, as I don't study those arts, but I do study Arnis. Many of the Kali/Escrima/Arnis systems out there engage in contact sparring. The Dog Brothers are a perfect example. My inst. regularly has us gear up and stick spar. It certainly opens our eyes as to what we can pull off and what we need to work on, when the stick is coming. I can attest to the welts and bruises that I've received.

No. That isn't what I'm saying. I have repeatedly drawn attention to fights without rules outside of tournament competition as well as in tournaments. Do all the videos mean nothing? Do all the people that say "well, that isn't really representative of the true expression of our style" have counterexamples? Do any of them?



I wouldn't have a problem with that IF and ONLY IF these people won against MMAists outside of tournaments using prohibited techniques or tactics. They don't.



Someone will get lucky sometimes. Some martial arts experiance is better than none. Do you think no smaller untrained fighter has ever knocked out a larger untrained fighter? Good martial arts should only improve their odds. The better the art, the better their chances become.



Thats exactly the point. You can't say just Royce Gracie beat everyone, or Rickson is just really technically skilled and would do well regardless of what he studied etc. when there are people with brief training in MMA or component arts doing well against others. Its not just Royce or Rickson or Hughes or Liddel or Fedor... its not some couple of superathletes who demolish everyone else through sheer athleticism or such. There are simply so many recorded matches between different BJJ, MMA, and component arts fighters and TMAists, RBSD practitioners, untrained fighters etc that I (and many others) see the efficacy of MMA training and elements as a defining factor.




I don't think that a with Royce's attributes would have done as well as he did if he had studied another set of styles. Sakuraba ("the gracie killer") who finally beat him decicively was even smaller than Royce and trained in a similar manner. Likewise with Walid Ismail and Hughes - sportsfighters all, with very solid groundwork. These people were not simply outmuscling him - they won on the strenght of their own styles and their own training.



No. Hughes is also an MMAist, who is in point of fact better both technically and in physicality than Royce.



I doubt Royce would have lasted much better if he were younger.



Not really. There are bad MMA schools and some TMA schools are better than others. However, if you look at who wins full contact fights, you see very consistant patterns emerging. The more you correspond to these patterns, the better your training probably serves you.



I am an amateur history buff and I love learning about martial arts history. I am, however, not conviced by arguements not backed up on tape or well recorded. There is too much theoretical excuses why something should work, but if no one can make it work, then what does that leave observers to conclude?



Well, no one is unconvinced that the sun will rise tomorrow. Some people still are unconvinced of other things, and I don't have any fear of informing them of the information I have come across.

As for the rest...I think you and I can both agree on the fact that issues like these have seriously been :deadhorse and then some. I said it before, and I'll say it again...each group has its strong and weak points and each group will benefit from one another.

Mike

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Well said.

Jeff

 

[Ybot]

Shewsbury, I honestly didn't take it personally, though I appriciate that you appologized. I just wanted to make the point that people assume that just because you study MMA arts your some sort of testosterone driven thug looking for a fight. Some are, but not all.

And by the way, I think training for Pro Wrestling is by far more dangerous than training for MMA. All those teribly hard falls you have to take... anyway, off subject there.

I think it's time to bring in the question: Why do we all feel we have to validate our arts based on it's "Street" efectiveness? What are the odds that any of us who are not LEOs, bouncers, or other form of security will ever find ourselves forced to use our art on the streets? I train for fun and the challenge to constantly improve. It keeps me in great shape, and I don't have to count sets. If anything it motivates me more than any other out side movivator to continue working out and improving my body so I will do better the next time.

There are a lot of people benifiting from Tai Chi that may not even realize they are practicing a martial art...

 

[Cryozombie]

All three have common characteristics of lacking full-contact freestyle sports competition,

Thanks Rook. Couldnt have said it better myself. MMA is a SPORT... not training for combat.

It's nice to see that we are in agreement, for once.

 

[Kensai]

Thanks Rook. Couldnt have said it better myself. MMA is a SPORT... not training for combat.

It's nice to see that we are in agreement, for once.

Lol. Yep. I may as well stop what it is I do, because it doesn't work in the ring against MMA. We're all wrong. It won't work at all in reality as I don't fight in a ring. Well, all of us who study TMA, or mixes of that. Damn it, I've wasted so much money. Woe is me, I wish the neersayers had told me sooner....

I wonder before MMA came along, did people who studied MA have this "I don't do boxing, therefore my MA won't work in a real environment, because I don't get hit every time I train"? mentality.

 

[Colin_Linz]

I do a TMA, at least I think I do. What I don’t understand is the ascertation that techniques aren’t tested in any meaningful way. I have studied boxing, judo a couple of systems of Kempo. The last 18 years have been with Shorinji Kempo. All these systems tested techniques in a live environment, some may be more restrained by rules than others, but in the end everything has some restraints or rules that affect the range of techniques practiced.

In Shorinji Kempo we don’t compete in competition. This does not mean the techniques aren’t tested against a resisting opponent. We also have very little in the way of banned targets or techniques at a senior level of randori. We use a number of different structures in our randori so that we can safely target specific outcomes. What we don’t have is a winner or loser, your techniques will either work or not. The randori is purely an activity to allow you to experiment and test your ability to apply techniques in a realistic environment.

While Shorinji Kempo is a little different to many TMA, we don’t have many forms, in fact we don’t have kata at all, we have hokei. Most of our training is in pairs and revolves around application of technique. So while I note these differences to many TMA I would also expect that there would still be many TMA around that still do test their ability to apply techniques in a chaotic situation.

In the end, as others have noted, it is up to the individual what style of training they enjoy and value most. I’m certainly not going to tell anyone that is enjoying what they do that it worthless, and they should be doing something else. I personally value budo very highly; I believe it has so much to offer that MMA don’t deliver. I have no interest in sports based MA at all; however I can completely accept someone else having a diametrically opposed viewpoint and seeing no value in budo.

 

[Carol]

I don't think television can be counted out.

If a student's predominant reason to train is because what s/he saw on TV looks cool, then MMA is most likely to be the better choice. I'd wager that the majority of the students predominantly attracted by television are most interested in doing what they see done on the screen.

 

[Odin]

I don't think television can be counted out.

If a student's predominant reason to train is because what s/he saw on TV looks cool, then MMA is most likely to be the better choice. I'd wager that the majority of the students predominantly attracted by television are most interested in doing what they see done on the screen.

...and marital arts films havent done the same for TMA?????

The massive boom in interest of the martial arts in the 70's was linked directly to the influnence of cinema.

 

[Rook]

...and marital arts films havent done the same for TMA?????

The massive boom in interest of the martial arts in the 70's was linked directly to the influnence of cinema.

I'll definately agree. All that cinema and TV does is get knowledge of some very superficial aspects of a given style out there. There are way more people who are doing something acrobatic because it looks good on TV than people who have chosen MMA or the like because of TUF or the UFC broadcasts.

 

[Cryozombie]

I'll definately agree. All that cinema and TV does is get knowledge of some very superficial aspects of a given style out there. There are way more people who are doing something acrobatic because it looks good on TV than people who have chosen MMA or the like because of TUF or the UFC broadcasts.

Really? So if UFC had never been aired the MMA boom still would have happened?

If there was no UFC or Pride broadcasts, MMA (if it had even developed as it has today, which is doubtful) would proabably be a few sweaty guys in a corner dojo somplace rolling around on the floor together. I mean, How did MMA gain popularity?

OH YEAH... people watched UFC fights.

You've been hit in the head alot durring practice havent you?

 

[Rook]

Really? So if UFC had never been aired the MMA boom still would have happened?

If there was no UFC or Pride broadcasts, MMA (if it had even developed as it has today, which is doubtful) would proabably be a few sweaty guys in a corner dojo somplace rolling around on the floor together. I mean, How did MMA gain popularity?

OH YEAH... people watched UFC fights.

You've been hit in the head alot durring practice havent you?

And without The Octagon and its ripoffs would there be that many ninjas? Without Bruce Lee and the HK theatre would there be that many CMAists or JKD proponents? Heck, without televised Judo, would there be as many judoists?

MMA gained its popularity in part by TV, but probably less so than most other popular styles.

 

[Odin]

And without The Octagon and its ripoffs would there be that many ninjas? Without Bruce Lee and the HK theatre would there be that many CMAists or JKD proponents? Heck, without televised Judo, would there be as many judoists?

MMA gained its popularity in part by TV, but probably less so than most other popular styles.

I agree, two shows played on T.V compared to the hundreds of thousand different media TMA is showcased on rangeing from Films to comic books to computer games the list is endless.

 

[Ybot]

I admit that I started BJJ after watching Royce Gracie in tapes of early UFC events. When I was a kid I trained Karate because I use to watch black belt theatre and the neighbor invited me to go to karate with him. In both cases I found something I enjoyed, so really TV influence was a good thing for me in these cases.

 

[Cryozombie]

And without The Octagon and its ripoffs would there be that many ninjas? Without Bruce Lee and the HK theatre would there be that many CMAists or JKD proponents? Heck, without televised Judo, would there be as many judoists?

MMA gained its popularity in part by TV, but probably less so than most other popular styles.

Bub... you assertation is that More TMA people started in a TMA because of TV than MMA people chose MMA because they saw it on TV...

I'm gonna disagree... Id bet that maybe... oh hell, Ill be generous, and say that 75% of all TMA guys started TMA cuz of the movies...

But I bet that closer to 90% of all MMA guys started because of UFC or its variants.

On sheer #s you are probably right, but on % of participants, Im sure you are fooling yourself.

 

[Andrew Green]

Of course proving the % statistics one way or another is impossible, so lets' argue about something else