Colin_Linz
Blue Belt
So that’s where we (Shorinji Kempo) went wrong, not enough movies featuring us. We will have to get the whip out on Sonny Chiba and get him to make some sequels to The Killing Machine and Sister Street Fighter.
Traditional vs MMA
- Thread starter Slihn
- Start date
hongkongfooey
Black Belt
Colin_Linz said:
Hey, I like those movies!
Floating Egg
Blue Belt
This is a complex topic with many variables, and most of them have been discussed at one time or another, but I would love to see more emphasis on testability. As someone that supports skeptical inquiry as a method of investigation, I've discovered much to my chagrin that entering the martial art world is very much like trying to play hop scotch on a mine field.
I suppose I'm a traditional martial artist because I've been practicing Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu for a couple of years, but prior to becoming a member of the Bujinkan, I practiced Judo for a while and dabbled in a few other martial arts not worth mentioning.
I've been lucky in that I've only been in one potentially life threatening situation, and while I was in a few fights as a child, I've managed to remain combat free for most of my twenty-six years. Needless to say, self-defense isn't my main reason for practicing martial arts. This doesn't mean that it's not important, and it's certainly higher on my priority list than competition, but my reasons for practicing MA have more to do with an underappreciated three letter world called "fun."
You now have a summary of my background and where I stand on the practice of martial arts. There are other things to consider of course, like my position on the difference between self-defense and fighting; my thoughts on training styles; and why I have an aversion to competition, but like I wrote in my first paragraph, I want to focus on testability.
More important to me than my martial art practice is something called skeptical inquiry. Skeptical inquiry, or scientific skepticism, is a tool of critical thinking, and it has proved to be a much more reliable life saver than my ability to unleash an effective preemptive strike or head butt someone without seeing stars.
As much as I love skeptical inquiry, it really does get in the way of my martial art practice, but I long ago made the decision to marry myself to reason. Still, it is hard to tell a respected instructor that he can't use his Ki to stop me from crushing his throat or making him squeal after I kick him in the love package (rather than the perineum).
The MMA vs. TMA debate is a particularly difficult subject for me because I don't like the way it's framed, and when I think I'm leaning in one direction of the debate, I find myself taking the other. It really is quite frustrating, but testability is something I understand, and it's not just important to science. It has many applications, and the martial art world would certainly benefit from its adoption.
There's too much anecdotal evidence and not enough testing. Many of the Bujinkan instructors differ substantially on how things should be taught. Some taijutsu instructors have a RedMan Self Defense Instructor Suit, and make use of it regularly; some have aggression training drills, and encourage preemptive attacks; some deliberately bring in martial artists that practice a different style to play; and some do really crazy **** like have students jump out of a moving car for a belt test.
Now that I'm done with some, I want to talk about most. Most taijutsu instructors avoid full-contact training, deeming it unnecessary or dangerous; most introduce woo-woo stuff that has nothing to do with training; most know very little about the historical context of their martial art; most have a cult like fascination with Hatsumi sensei; and most like to introduce red herrings when discussing other martial arts.
I'm lucky in that I was trained by someone from the some camp, but I've been around long enough to see more than my share of practitioners from the other group. I don't think this is unique to traditional martial arts, but it is currently unusual in MMA because practitioners have a more precise goal. They can't depend on esotericism when they're in the ring or on the matt with their burly training partner. They can't get away with depending on what the Grandmaster says or the anecdotal evidence shared around a campfire at a mountain retreat.
MMA has problems too because most (there's that word again) don't practice their craft for self-defense. Most are too busy training for lucrative competitions, and they either don't have time to get in scraps at the local bar and/or they can't risk it because getting seriously hurt could end their career.
Despite MMA's myopic view of self-defense and the realities of street fighting, practitioners will go out of their way to find a way to test what they're doing. Traditional martial artists are lazy on this front. They do depend on tradition, their "feelings" about what they're doing, and what they've heard from fellow martial artists. They're pulled in by the fellowship of the dojo and all that it offers. Their instructor has a psychological advantage over them, and without being deliberately dishonest, they're more than willing to accommodate less than realistic demands.
I have been guilty of this on occasion in other arts, allowing myself to be used for the instructor's entertainment, getting a kick out of it myself, but secretly acknowledging that if this was real life, that arm lock would not be so secure, pinching my skin would not stop me from driving my fist into my instructors groin, and gouging me in the eye will not make me run away screaming.
As far as I'm concerned, MMA and TMA both need a reality check. As the OP noted, I think it would be best if the divisiveness took a back seat to collaboration, but I doubt that will ever happen.
I suppose I'm a traditional martial artist because I've been practicing Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu for a couple of years, but prior to becoming a member of the Bujinkan, I practiced Judo for a while and dabbled in a few other martial arts not worth mentioning.
I've been lucky in that I've only been in one potentially life threatening situation, and while I was in a few fights as a child, I've managed to remain combat free for most of my twenty-six years. Needless to say, self-defense isn't my main reason for practicing martial arts. This doesn't mean that it's not important, and it's certainly higher on my priority list than competition, but my reasons for practicing MA have more to do with an underappreciated three letter world called "fun."
You now have a summary of my background and where I stand on the practice of martial arts. There are other things to consider of course, like my position on the difference between self-defense and fighting; my thoughts on training styles; and why I have an aversion to competition, but like I wrote in my first paragraph, I want to focus on testability.
More important to me than my martial art practice is something called skeptical inquiry. Skeptical inquiry, or scientific skepticism, is a tool of critical thinking, and it has proved to be a much more reliable life saver than my ability to unleash an effective preemptive strike or head butt someone without seeing stars.
As much as I love skeptical inquiry, it really does get in the way of my martial art practice, but I long ago made the decision to marry myself to reason. Still, it is hard to tell a respected instructor that he can't use his Ki to stop me from crushing his throat or making him squeal after I kick him in the love package (rather than the perineum).
The MMA vs. TMA debate is a particularly difficult subject for me because I don't like the way it's framed, and when I think I'm leaning in one direction of the debate, I find myself taking the other. It really is quite frustrating, but testability is something I understand, and it's not just important to science. It has many applications, and the martial art world would certainly benefit from its adoption.
There's too much anecdotal evidence and not enough testing. Many of the Bujinkan instructors differ substantially on how things should be taught. Some taijutsu instructors have a RedMan Self Defense Instructor Suit, and make use of it regularly; some have aggression training drills, and encourage preemptive attacks; some deliberately bring in martial artists that practice a different style to play; and some do really crazy **** like have students jump out of a moving car for a belt test.
Now that I'm done with some, I want to talk about most. Most taijutsu instructors avoid full-contact training, deeming it unnecessary or dangerous; most introduce woo-woo stuff that has nothing to do with training; most know very little about the historical context of their martial art; most have a cult like fascination with Hatsumi sensei; and most like to introduce red herrings when discussing other martial arts.
I'm lucky in that I was trained by someone from the some camp, but I've been around long enough to see more than my share of practitioners from the other group. I don't think this is unique to traditional martial arts, but it is currently unusual in MMA because practitioners have a more precise goal. They can't depend on esotericism when they're in the ring or on the matt with their burly training partner. They can't get away with depending on what the Grandmaster says or the anecdotal evidence shared around a campfire at a mountain retreat.
MMA has problems too because most (there's that word again) don't practice their craft for self-defense. Most are too busy training for lucrative competitions, and they either don't have time to get in scraps at the local bar and/or they can't risk it because getting seriously hurt could end their career.
Despite MMA's myopic view of self-defense and the realities of street fighting, practitioners will go out of their way to find a way to test what they're doing. Traditional martial artists are lazy on this front. They do depend on tradition, their "feelings" about what they're doing, and what they've heard from fellow martial artists. They're pulled in by the fellowship of the dojo and all that it offers. Their instructor has a psychological advantage over them, and without being deliberately dishonest, they're more than willing to accommodate less than realistic demands.
I have been guilty of this on occasion in other arts, allowing myself to be used for the instructor's entertainment, getting a kick out of it myself, but secretly acknowledging that if this was real life, that arm lock would not be so secure, pinching my skin would not stop me from driving my fist into my instructors groin, and gouging me in the eye will not make me run away screaming.
As far as I'm concerned, MMA and TMA both need a reality check. As the OP noted, I think it would be best if the divisiveness took a back seat to collaboration, but I doubt that will ever happen.
Floating Egg said:
Yes, very much so.
I do karate because I enjoy it too... I think a large minority to a small majority of MAists picked their art simply because they enjoyed it most.
I've found, too that most martial arts practice is based on alot of assumptions held as true because that someone said they were old.
This part I don't really agree with. Most MMA competition isn't that lucrative, and if the MMAists around you are like the ones around here, they are less than hesitant to try what they know. While most aren't bar fighters, there are plenty of streetfighter/MMA guys and no shortage of MMAists with real life experiance.
The problem is that we have a situation where one side presents evidence and the other side tends to resort to calling them immature and intolerant (sound familiar?) rather than producing counterevidence. Compromises are really only possible when both sides put something of value on the table.
Good post and welcome to martialtalk!
tradrockrat
2nd Black Belt
Rook said:
last post for me on a dead horse subject.
I posit 2000 years of warfare in which Kung Fu, Bando, and combative styles of Muai Thai were used and used effectively in real combat. The students of history on this thread should readily admit this history is factual and true. They should also admit that it wasn't 2000 years of luck, I hope.
Where is MMA's real combat history? I'm sure it exists, but where is it and how does it compare to 2000 years of historical documentation? The burden of proof is yours.
I have now presented my evidence and put it on the table. I have taken MMA out of the ring and octagon (where I have already conceeded that a MMA fighter will do well in an MMA fight) and put it in the world of no rules -only survival. Please bring it to the table and sit down ready for an openminded discussion where we can all learn about the reality of ALL MA's, and maybe, just maybe, we can all check our egos at the door and learn something we didn't already know.
tradrockrat said:
Easy.
The wrestling contests of the greeks were based on the greco-roman throws combined with submissions.
Wrestling contests are one of the oldest themes of pre-doric greek writing (which is written in Linear B). Linear B writings mention organized submission wrestling contests more than 1000 years before the birth of Chirst. It is mentioned in late pre-Doric literature including Homer's works.
Boxing emerged somewhat later. However, by the early doric period, boxing supplemented wrestling as both a component of military training and as a sport.
By 684 B.C. (according to wikipedia... I had to look up the date), an Olympic game called pancration was introduced. This was intended to answer the question of whether wrestling or boxing was better. The point was apparently moot already, as military men trained in both. In any case, what emerged as a winning strategy came in the form of the early powerhouse in the games, Sparta. Spartan fighters often essentially ground and pounded their opponents, throwing them to the ground, mounting them and then finishing them with strikes. When biting and eyegouging were banned, however, Sparta withdrew from pancration competitions. At this point, submissions and standup fighting began to compete effectively with the spartan strategy. Other city-states would compete to great sucess.
At the outbreak of the Pel. war, pancrationists were often placed at the head of military training programs, and pancration at this point began to displace seperate boxing and wrestling programs.
Alexander the Great considered pancration as one of the most important indicators of soldiers abilities, and pancration tournaments were used to fill empty command positions in his army. His personal bodyguards were mostly pancrationists as well.
With the coming of the roman empire, pancration became less common, as the Romans generally prefered to treat wrestling and boxing as seperate components of military training. The Roman close range fighting was based in no small part on the submission style wrestling of the greek military, and wrestling and boxing matches were very common througout Roman history.
With the fall of the roman empire, wrestling remained a major part of battlefield training for the military elite - knights and mercenaries. This may have been the origin of the pin rule - a pin in practice would have symbolized an ability to control the opponent long enough to use a secondary weapon from a dominent position.
Variations on the greco-roman submission style led to ringkampf, a german submission wrestling style that also apparently included rapid-fire punches and knifework on the ground. Most of ringkampf has been lost, but it became the main military training component for the late Teutonic knights, as well as german knights of all stripes - it later spread into italy and may have influenced Turkish and russian wrestling as well. Some parts of it remain because the training manuels were quoted in later works.
The English and Dutch also created their own unique variations - which still exist today as "Catch wrestling."
Though boxing had been in decline, it was hardly lost - as armies professionalized, boxing came back into heavier military use for less armored troops.
The advant of the firearm changed all this. Ringkampf was forgotten... greco-roman wrestling became far less common, and was ussually now done for a pin rather than a submission.
Boxing was hardly dead. In the Napoleonic wars, manuels on boxing were distributed to military commanders on all sides and it is unclear who started the idea of standardized army-wide boxing, but the manuels of the time make it clear it was expected, if not always followed up on. It was intended as a close combat system.
Boxing remains a part of standard military training in the western world to this day, although now it is ussually simply a part of the general military combatives program - a WWII era development.
I take it you already know the history of BJJ and Muay Thai, the other two major MMA styles.
I'll look forward to that.
No system has existed for 2000 years in tact, evolution occurs in all. MMA traces back just as far, taking into account how one thing leads to another. It just doesn't base it's marketing around it.
Andrew Green said:
Hmmm. Shui Chaio, Muay Thai, Greco-Roman wrestling, Boxing, spearthrowing and basic archery should all trace back to 2000+ years. How changed some of these systems are is another matter. However, I think I can group them fairly as extensions of their former selves with long roots even though things do change.
Floating Egg
Blue Belt
Rook said:
I'll concede that point because I've had limited exposure.
I imagine my peers in the traditional martial art community would suggest that mixed martial artists are too comfortable with the idea that the ring or octagon is an effective template for other environments. The traditional martial artist is often defensive, and finds it much easier to attack the evidence provided by the mixed martial artist.
Floating Egg
Blue Belt
tradrockrat said:
I think it's a mistake to judge the success of something based on its longetivity. Once again, there are too many variables: the infrequency of unarmed combat and the priority of weapons; the dynamics of battlefield combat and the special needs of civilian self-defense; the cultural history of the combatants; and the usefulness of unarmed training for purposes other than actual combat. I'd also hazard a guess that how we train today is substantially different, what with the lack of pressing doom and all of that kill or be killed stuff.
Floating Egg said:
Excellent point. JJJ was intended to be done in armor, ringkampf sometimes practiced in armor (as was the old greco-roman during the middle ages). Anti-weapons tactics against the spear (the "emperor of weapons"), the chinese broadsword, the katana, the thrown rock, the deer-horn sword - all must be modified for use against an unarmed opponent. The battlefield is surely like not the same as modern self-defense where the weapons, the clothing, the probable tactics and the legal ramifications are far different.
Shrewsbury
Orange Belt
I guess ythis is where i differ in opinion, to me these arts are not mma's themselves, but parts and peices of it are incorperated in mma's.
I would never say greco wresting, western boxing, kick boxing, juijitsu or anything else is a mma art but parts are borrowed from them to make a mma's.
to me mma's are some one training to fight and incorporating whatever is usable into their skill set to win a fight, so obviously it is a good fighting art, because thats all it is about, fighting.
a traditonal arts has more things than just fighting, a history, forms, meditation, health arts, fighting arts, weapons, and more, it is an art that encompasses many aspects of life, not just fighting.
this is no way says mma's aren't arts, but to me, in my opinion, they are one part of the arts, the fighting aspects. anyone here that has studied for a number of years probaly has studied more than one art and fights using many arts and methods they have learned. I have been studying for 30 years and hold black belt or above rank in japanese, okinawa, american, external and internal chinese arts, but i am not a mma's person.
when i teach i teach people what they want or what fits them, so my students study different things, some taichi, some bagua, some just chi gung, some just self defense, and even chinese animal boxing, I incorporate things from shorin ryu, kioshi kempo, kenpo, hun gar, toy gar, budakai juijitsu, wrestling, dragon bagua, sun bagua, xing yi, and yang tai chi. but i am still not a mma's person.
Shrewsbury said:
Yes, "Mixed martial arts" is not a great name for the style, but it is the one that stuck
Anyways, arts divide, merge, evolve, borrow from each other, forget things, remember lost things, etc. This is true in any countries arts.
Floating Egg
Blue Belt
Maybe we should define what MMA and TMA are before we continue, because I'm already getting confused.
Floating Egg said:
Ok.
TMA = a martial art that is taught in a traditional manner. By this, I mean an art that is taught according to set traditions established some time far enough into the past that their age or the manner in which they are embedded are the major reason why things are done the way they are. Lineage determines much about reputation.
Sports systems = a martial art intended to be practiced and trained against fully resistant, freeform and non-compliant partners. Competitions determine much about reputation.
RBSD = systems based on self defense theories that lack both a traditional basis and do not participate sucessfully or often in sports competitions.
Now, here is where it gets complicated. Some TMAs are also sports systems - like Shui Chaio and Judo. Many martial arts instruct self defense concepts based on modern conditions and statistics even when they are in no way related to RBSD systems.
MMA = the collection of techniques, priciples, concepts, training methods and practices used sucessfully and consistantly by cagefighter and participants in similar events. MMA is ussually thought of as a blend of four styles - Western boxing, western wrestling, Muay Thai, and BJJ. However, arts which cover the same or very similar material can be substituted - i.e. SAMBO for BJJ and wrestling, kyokushin for muay thai, San Shou for muay thai and takedowns, Judo for BJJ etc etc etc...
Rook said:
Sadly, yes. But give it a few years and we might get to be thought of as a unique entity, not a mix of others
Most discussions I've seen regarding the effectiveness of Mixed Martial Arts conflate several aspects of the arts. The two most often cited hallmarks of the MMA's are training against resistence and a heavy emphasis on ground fighting. These two aspects are obviously not the same thing, and one doesn't necessarily follow from the other.
Meaning, among traditional martial artists, I'd like to know some reasons why;
1) resistant training, or aliveness, is not incorporated into your art, and should not be or,
2) why ground fighting is not incorporated into or emphasized in your art, and should not be;
assuming of course, that your TMA does not incorporate these things, as many do.
Before anyone gets defensive, let me tell you that I come from two "Traditional" martial arts, Modern Arnis and Aikido.
I believe that the reasons Traditional Martial Artists, who often come from weapons based or influenced systems, do not like to emphasize ground fighting. I would not want to study an art that uses going to the ground as a stragegy, the so-called sacrifice throw. There are very few situations where I would willingly go to the ground. As anyone who is familiar with the two arts I study would see, I prefer my submissions where I remain standing and the other guy is on the ground.
However, there is a question that MMA asks that TMA seldom answers. TMA says, "Why would I want to go to the ground? There is terrain to worry about, additional attackers, weapons, etc?" I believe all these concerns are valid, and that one shoud strive to avoid ground combat. Yet what MMA has shown is that it is relatively easy to get a fighter on the ground, even when that fighter is scared to death of the ground, and does everything in his power not to go there.
Even if I have the skill to dominate someone on the ground, and eventually win there, rolling around with someone for even a matter of 20 to 30 seconds in a real situation is something I never want to do. Let alone the minues locked up on the ground that MMA fights often go. But to the TMA practitioners who will not take MMA seriously for its combat (not sporting, I know many here have conceded that) aspects, I ask, how could you avoid a ground situation if you wanted to? Did the early UFC stand-up fighters who were taken to the ground just not try hard enough? If they had known that there would be weapons or multiple opponents involved, then would they have been able to stay on their feet, or get back up after being taken down? If only they had been allowed small joint manipulation, or biting, or groin shots, or what? I for one train in a lot of small joint manipulation, and like it a great deal. I'd like to see how it works against a ground fighter's tactics. I'm asking honestly. Does anyone here know of a situation of someone skilled in SJM trying to use it against a ground fighter?
I agree that the ground is not the place to fight from. But how many of us TMA people train to make the choice of wether or not to go there ours, and not the other guys? I'm not trying to assert anything. I'm asking. I'm really curious, as a traditional martial artist.
Thank you all,
Stan
Meaning, among traditional martial artists, I'd like to know some reasons why;
1) resistant training, or aliveness, is not incorporated into your art, and should not be or,
2) why ground fighting is not incorporated into or emphasized in your art, and should not be;
assuming of course, that your TMA does not incorporate these things, as many do.
Before anyone gets defensive, let me tell you that I come from two "Traditional" martial arts, Modern Arnis and Aikido.
I believe that the reasons Traditional Martial Artists, who often come from weapons based or influenced systems, do not like to emphasize ground fighting. I would not want to study an art that uses going to the ground as a stragegy, the so-called sacrifice throw. There are very few situations where I would willingly go to the ground. As anyone who is familiar with the two arts I study would see, I prefer my submissions where I remain standing and the other guy is on the ground.
However, there is a question that MMA asks that TMA seldom answers. TMA says, "Why would I want to go to the ground? There is terrain to worry about, additional attackers, weapons, etc?" I believe all these concerns are valid, and that one shoud strive to avoid ground combat. Yet what MMA has shown is that it is relatively easy to get a fighter on the ground, even when that fighter is scared to death of the ground, and does everything in his power not to go there.
Even if I have the skill to dominate someone on the ground, and eventually win there, rolling around with someone for even a matter of 20 to 30 seconds in a real situation is something I never want to do. Let alone the minues locked up on the ground that MMA fights often go. But to the TMA practitioners who will not take MMA seriously for its combat (not sporting, I know many here have conceded that) aspects, I ask, how could you avoid a ground situation if you wanted to? Did the early UFC stand-up fighters who were taken to the ground just not try hard enough? If they had known that there would be weapons or multiple opponents involved, then would they have been able to stay on their feet, or get back up after being taken down? If only they had been allowed small joint manipulation, or biting, or groin shots, or what? I for one train in a lot of small joint manipulation, and like it a great deal. I'd like to see how it works against a ground fighter's tactics. I'm asking honestly. Does anyone here know of a situation of someone skilled in SJM trying to use it against a ground fighter?
I agree that the ground is not the place to fight from. But how many of us TMA people train to make the choice of wether or not to go there ours, and not the other guys? I'm not trying to assert anything. I'm asking. I'm really curious, as a traditional martial artist.
Thank you all,
Stan
Stan said:
It is for me, on a regular basis.
I take it upon myself, to do some grappling, to have a better understanding of the ground. There have always been grappling methods in the arts I study, again, I'm taking a bit further.
Agreed, those are valid concerns. IMHO, I feel that its a huge benefit to have some basic ground knowledge. My goal, should I end up there, is not to keep the person there and roll around for 20 min, but instead to escape a bad position and get back to a standing position.
Get a basic understanding of the ground. People seem to forget that yes, while there are always going to be better people out there, every situation is not going to be against a Royce Gracie skill level.
Not having an understanding of something is what leads to the downfall. How can we defend against something if we don't understand it?
God, I'd hope they'd get back up. Dealing with the weapons, mult attackers is hard enough standing, let alone while grappling.
Anything is possible. Like any lock, its something that should find us, rather than us looking for something that may never be there. In other words, if it presents itself, take advantage of it, if it doesnt, move on to something else.
As I said, having a grappling background is going to be a big help.
Mike
Thanks, MJS, for a thoughtful response from an Arnisador. Your responses are close to how I would answer my own questions.
Remember, everyone, my signature line, "Doch das Messer sieht man nicht". It's a quote from Berthold Brecht in "Die Moritat von Mackie Messer" the German song from the Threepenny Opera that "Mack the Knife" is based on. It means, "But one does not see the knife." Besides being a Germanophile and a Brecht fan, I am always looking in my empty hand practice for ways to deploy a weapon, or ways that one may be deployed against me.
I'm not saying that MMA doesn't do this. We tend to talk about the tournament aspects of MMA, forgetting that the practitioners practice different variations for self-defense. I mean that all of us, particularly those from non-weapon arts, should become more weapon aware at all times. There is no such thing as empty hand training. Weapons may sometimes be out of sight, but for the martial artist, they should never be out of mind.
Remember, everyone, my signature line, "Doch das Messer sieht man nicht". It's a quote from Berthold Brecht in "Die Moritat von Mackie Messer" the German song from the Threepenny Opera that "Mack the Knife" is based on. It means, "But one does not see the knife." Besides being a Germanophile and a Brecht fan, I am always looking in my empty hand practice for ways to deploy a weapon, or ways that one may be deployed against me.
I'm not saying that MMA doesn't do this. We tend to talk about the tournament aspects of MMA, forgetting that the practitioners practice different variations for self-defense. I mean that all of us, particularly those from non-weapon arts, should become more weapon aware at all times. There is no such thing as empty hand training. Weapons may sometimes be out of sight, but for the martial artist, they should never be out of mind.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
重心 Zhòngxīn center of gravity- Latest: windwalker099
-
-
-
-
-