Traditional vs MMA

[MJS]

I think we've touched on this before, but many sports martial arts DO have extensive weapons defense training. It is a huge part of the SAMBO curriculum, and not exactly a small part of BJJ either. I would say the majority of MMA gyms that I am aware of train weapons defense in some form, whether based on BJJ, Bas Rutten's rather popular system, or other weapons defenses available through law enforcement or the like. The equation of TMA= has weapons defenses and MMA/sport = no weapons defense is just plain wrong. I am aware of TMA schools that do not run weapons defenses, and most MMA schools DO have weapons defenses.

I'll play devils advocate here for a moment. In past posts, you and I have had discussions regarding proof, either by a written record, tape, etc. I havent seen any BJJ weapon defenses on tape. Why is it they're putting every possible mount, side mount, guard pass, north/south, position, on tape, but no weapon defense?? If its superior, don't you think they'd market a tape?

Mike

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I'll play devils advocate here for a moment. In past posts, you and I have had discussions regarding proof, either by a written record, tape, etc. I havent seen any BJJ weapon defenses on tape. Why is it they're putting every possible mount, side mount, guard pass, north/south, position, on tape, but no weapon defense?? If its superior, don't you think they'd market a tape?

Mike

Mike they do have several self defense books out there. Royce's self defense book does show defenses versus a club,knife or gun. However, to say that they spend much time training these techniques is not quite true. I have been in many a BJJ school were I would say 95% of the time is spent on technique designed for rolling and rolling itself. The 5% of time spent on self defense techniques seems to be closer to the norm. Even then they are not teaching how to use a tool but rather how to disarm one.

This argument seems to be continually popping up here in one form or another. Enjoy your training but understand that there are no absolutes in a violent encounter. If you study MMA or TMA that is great but neither of them guarantee you success in a violent encounter. Train hard and enjoy what you do and if you are ever attacked hopefully you will be able to get away (or save your loved ones) to live another day.

 

[Bigshadow]

Probably, but there's a bit of a gray area with professional fighters because what they use in the ring often does work in the street.

I disagree to some extent. Fear of death changes the scope of everything. Because of this fear, there will be techniques that are used in the ring, that won't seem so useful anymore, because of the risk of death. This has the same effect on the other side as well, but the person who consistently trains in a manner that is not confined by rules, I believe will have the advantage. Additionally, the purpose for the training makes a large impact on the outcome. If one is training for the sole purpose of winning in the ring and scoring points, they are not training with the idea that they are fighting for their life or the lives of their loved ones. In fact, the reality of death is far from their minds as they train. This too, impacts what they do on the street when their lives are on the line.

Sure on the street there will be elements that are familiar to them, but I believe they will find real self defense or fighting for their life rather unfamiliar.

When I talk about on the street self defense, I am not talking about someone's ego getting bruised in the club so he starts swinging, or someone grabbed his girlfriend's ***. I am talking a legitimate surprise life and death situation.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I think we've touched on this before, but many sports martial arts DO have extensive weapons defense training. It is a huge part of the SAMBO curriculum, and not exactly a small part of BJJ either. I would say the majority of MMA gyms that I am aware of train weapons defense in some form, whether based on BJJ, Bas Rutten's rather popular system, or other weapons defenses available through law enforcement or the like. The equation of TMA= has weapons defenses and MMA/sport = no weapons defense is just plain wrong. I am aware of TMA schools that do not run weapons defenses, and most MMA schools DO have weapons defenses.

Actually I don’t think we have touched on this before, but I am not disputing this.

I have no experience with Sambo so I cannot comment on the training. I do have a little, very little, with MMA which was basically Muay Thai and BJJ and I will admit although I never got to that point (see "very little" comment) I do believe you are correct there, weapons defense was part of the curriculum.

As a side note the class was filled with LEO as well as most of the local swat team.

However as I stated, as far as I know, the sports version of Sanshou does not. But once again I did not train the sports version only the police version.

The following statement is not directed specifically to Rook, but to everyone here. There is something that I am just not getting here why are we trying to prove superiority of TMA over MMA or MMA over TMA?

And you know, I may just make this a separate post

 

[MJS]

Mike they do have several self defense books out there. Royce's self defense book does show defenses versus a club,knife or gun. However, to say that they spend much time training these techniques is not quite true. I have been in many a BJJ school were I would say 95% of the time is spent on technique designed for rolling and rolling itself. The 5% of time spent on self defense techniques seems to be closer to the norm. Even then they are not teaching how to use a tool but rather how to disarm one.

Hey Brian,

Yes, I have the book in question, and you're absolutely correct, the majority of time is spent rolling. Its been a while since I've gone to my BJJ class, but last time I was there, we were not working on weapon defense. From my experience with stick and blade disarms, the ones contained in this book were extemely basic. IMHO, if you really want to understand a weapon, you need to train in a weapon based art.

This argument seems to be continually popping up here in one form or another. Enjoy your training but understand that there are no absolutes in a violent encounter. If you study MMA or TMA that is great but neither of them guarantee you success in a violent encounter. Train hard and enjoy what you do and if you are ever attacked hopefully you will be able to get away (or save your loved ones) to live another day.

Agreed again! I've said it before, and I'll say it again...both MMA and TMA can learn from each other. They both have things in them that can make the student of either one, much better. I credit BJJ for giving me a better understanding of the ground, as well as exploring potential weaknesses in my stand up techniques.

In closing, I'll say that its all good, we should realize that people train for their own reasons, and IMHO, arguments like this have been dragged on and are really getting old.

Mike

 

[Floating Egg]

There is something that I am just not getting here why are we trying to prove superiority of TMA over MMA or MMA over TMA?

I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that not all martial arts are created equal, and that some are more suitable for certain environments than others. It's important for me to discuss these issues critically because that's how I learn, and so far I think this argument has been productive.

 

[Odin]

. There is something that I am just not getting here why are we trying to prove superiority of TMA over MMA or MMA over TMA?

erm...because the name of the thread is traditional vs mma?

 

[Rook]

This has the same effect on the other side as well, but the person who consistently trains in a manner that is not confined by rules, I believe will have the advantage.

Do you continually train in a full contact, freeform manner, or rather do you have rules require that strikes be less than full power and/or that a pattern be followed? Rules aren't just prohibited target areas.

 

[Bigshadow]

Do you continually train in a full contact, freeform manner, or rather do you have rules require that strikes be less than full power and/or that a pattern be followed? Rules aren't just prohibited target areas.

We train enough (maybe 10% max of our training) in a full contact free form manner. Full power is pointless, but since you seem intrigued by full power I will say we maybe go about 70% or so, with the more experienced students. There is no set pattern and no target is off limits, we only control the speed.

The reason I believe training "full power" is pointless is that if something is a true technique, it will work slow or fast, the speed component isn't really relavent to the training. Sure, one should be able to do the *same* thing at speed as they do slowly and should be practiced that way (no more than about 10% of their training time), if not, they are doing something wrong. Yes, people should ramp up the speed and so forth, I don't disagree, but I wouldn't put alot of focus on the speed over doing it correctly at any speed.

Simply put, the speed test can be quite misleading to people, especially if they rely on that speed to make techniques work. If this were the case, I would suggest they review what they are doing as they are likely to find it breaks down at slower speeds, therefore not a universal principle or true technique.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

We train enough (maybe 10% max of our training) in a full contact free form manner. Full power is pointless, but since you seem intrigued by full power I will say we maybe go about 70% or so, with the more experienced students. There is no set pattern and no target is off limits, we only control the speed.

The reason I believe training "full power" is pointless is that if something is a true technique, it will work slow or fast, the speed component isn't really relavent to the training. Sure, one should be able to do the *same* thing at speed as they do slowly and should be practiced that way (no more than about 10% of their training time), if not, they are doing something wrong. Yes, people should ramp up the speed and so forth, I don't disagree, but I wouldn't put alot of focus on the speed over doing it correctly at any speed.

Simply put, the speed test can be quite misleading to people, especially if they rely on that speed to make techniques work. If this were the case, I would suggest they review what they are doing as they are likely to find it breaks down at slower speeds, therefore not a universal principle or true technique.

Hey Dave,

That is a very nice post! Breaking down and working at slower speeds is essential to make sure that you are not using to much muscle and instead that you are using proper skeletal alignment.

 

[Rook]

We train enough (maybe 10% max of our training) in a full contact free form manner. Full power is pointless, but since you seem intrigued by full power I will say we maybe go about 70% or so, with the more experienced students. There is no set pattern and no target is off limits, we only control the speed.

The reason I believe training "full power" is pointless is that if something is a true technique, it will work slow or fast, the speed component isn't really relavent to the training. Sure, one should be able to do the *same* thing at speed as they do slowly and should be practiced that way (no more than about 10% of their training time), if not, they are doing something wrong. Yes, people should ramp up the speed and so forth, I don't disagree, but I wouldn't put alot of focus on the speed over doing it correctly at any speed.

Simply put, the speed test can be quite misleading to people, especially if they rely on that speed to make techniques work. If this were the case, I would suggest they review what they are doing as they are likely to find it breaks down at slower speeds, therefore not a universal principle or true technique.

I have done slow speed training too. While it is useful for developing technique, I find it problematic in that reaction time becomes far less relavent. This makes it possible to see techniques coming early and intercept them when in reality, they are often halfway there before I would be aware of them. I have noticed that people who do alot of slow motion sparing often vastly overestimate their blocking/redirecting/evading ability, and that this quickly becomes apparent when they go full speed. I have no way of knowing how much this applies to you, but I have my concerns about this as a major focus of training.

 

[Bigshadow]

I have done slow speed training too. While it is useful for developing technique, I find it problematic in that reaction time becomes far less relavent. This makes it possible to see techniques coming early and intercept them when in reality, they are often halfway there before I would be aware of them.

That is because someone isn't moving at the right time. They will never learn it at full speed, even though it shows up at full speed. That is why I say start slow, when you think you have it, speed it up. If it breaks down, you didn't have it, go back and work on it.

Both uke and tori need to be honest with themselves and each other, go slow, and communicate when the other isn't doing something right. Uke knows when uke is committed and can show tori when they moved too soon or too late while going SLOWLY. This is how tori learns. Uke also has to know the mechanics of a good punch or kick and does it perfectly SLOWLY and with intent, not just thrusting it out there. Doing this the tori can pick up on when the mind and body is committed to the punch and move appropriately. This can be pushed faster later. If tori feels like they are having to rush out of the way (too late), if uke can change targets (too soon), if uke can't change targets and tori feels like he/she casually stepped and things worked, the timing was good.

There is a fine line between doing it right and doing it wrong, it is paper thin. On one side is life and the other is death.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that not all martial arts are created equal, and that some are more suitable for certain environments than others. It's important for me to discuss these issues critically because that's how I learn, and so far I think this argument has been productive.

"some are more suitable for certain environments than others"

I agree with this, to a point, and it is important to always learn in MA. As I have posted previously, Equally skilled martial artists such as Wing Chun verses Long fist in the closed in streets of Hong Kong could give the Wing Chun person an advantage while Wing Chun vs. Long Fist in the open spaces of Beijing may give the Long fist person the advantage. But that does not make either superior or one better than the other.

erm...because the name of the thread is traditional vs mma?

But why have the argument at all? Both are very good for what they are.

Why TMA vs. MMA at all. To discuss the advantages and disadvantage of both is a good thing that is bound to better both sides of the discussion but this "MMA is better" "no its not TMA is better" argument is pointless and at best circular. But for the most part it is arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Cryozombie]

Speed and strength are awesome, until your turn 50 and lose them.
​

 

[Andy Moynihan]

what I think both sides have confused is that about 80% of the MA taught at least in this country are not that given MA's true incarnation anymore but fallen to McDojo style training geared less toward serious students and more towards children, soccer moms and soft middle class people who don't like to get hit. In such an environment the training is usually severely lacking in quality of technical depth( i.e. a lot of form or movement practiced with no idea why it is practiced or to what purpose), the promise of "self discipline" appears to send the message to soccer moms that a martial arts school, at some point, became synonymous with a babysitting service. This is not to say kids don't benefit, but it does change the whole tone, and so adult material( i.e. techniques or issues relating to deadly force, weaponry or true self defense) cannot be taught "as is" with children in attendance, and there is an implied guarantee that you will recieve your "black belt" or equivalent rank simply because you paid for it, irrespective of whether or not you can step on the mat and defend it.)

FWIW this pisses of true TMAists just as much as MMAists and this, i think, is where the biggest disconnect between the two exists. The MMAists primarily see the McDojo atmosphere( since this is the one most prolific and thus most commonly encountered at least Stateside) and understandably get the impression that this is all there is to TMA because they use TMA names, and more often than not the style is (TMA Name here) in name only.

The natural reaction, of course, is one of defensiveness--people who feel attacked stop being receptive, and this , at least in part, I'm sure must fuel the "it's just a sport" counterargument to MMA.

So you see why I say the McDojo craze isn't helping anyone and only serves to hurt the arts as a whole. XMA, Final Fu and other shows of their ilk are frankly no help at all to rectify this either.

For my own part, i have no problems with the concept or format of MMA training, having occasional sparring sessions in a similar format, etc. What I DON'T like is the image the UFC reality show and the advertising campaign for MMA events sends to the general public with the trash talk( Ortiz-Shamrock anyone? No? Me either), and this over -fixation on being caught up in the need to "win" to the point an individual's personal conduct suffers. When I was coming up these were personality traits MA training was supposed to EXPUNGE, not promulgate, and to see it in this state sickens me, and this is one way it could be said I was put off not by the Style but its practitioners.

It probably also doesn't help I take a dim view of professional fighting at all---I have no problem with training in such a way if the purpose is self improvement, self defense or helping each other get sronger in and of itself, but ( and I realize this is purely a personal opinion and nothing more then that) I have problems on the personal level with people so eager to agree to commit violence on someone just for money.

Now it isn't for me to tell them how to live, it may be the only way they can make money, and I ain't gonna make some crusade over it--professional fighting was here before I was born, it will still be here after my bones are dust, and I'm not gonna lie and say I *never* watch it. But for whatever reason that's how I feel about it and my opinion's worth exactly what you paid for it *shrug*


Anyway back to the point, you can see whay I'm of the view that the subject is not quite so cut and dry.

 

[Cryozombie]

For my own part, i have no problems with the concept or format of MMA training, having occasional sparring sessions in a similar format, etc. What I DON'T like is the image the UFC reality show and the advertising campaign for MMA events sends to the general public with the trash talk( Ortiz-Shamrock anyone? No? Me either), and this over -fixation on being caught up in the need to "win" to the point an individual's personal conduct suffers. When I was coming up these were personality traits MA training was supposed to EXPUNGE, not promulgate, and to see it in this state sickens me, and this is one way it could be said I was put off not by the Style but its practitioners.

Andy... this is right on the money. Very close to what I said Way back in the beginning when I said that MMA teniques were good, but the practitioners attitudes suck. You just said it better than me.

 

[Floating Egg]

Great post Andy, and something else for me to think about.

 

[MJS]

I have done slow speed training too. While it is useful for developing technique, I find it problematic in that reaction time becomes far less relavent. This makes it possible to see techniques coming early and intercept them when in reality, they are often halfway there before I would be aware of them. I have noticed that people who do alot of slow motion sparing often vastly overestimate their blocking/redirecting/evading ability, and that this quickly becomes apparent when they go full speed. I have no way of knowing how much this applies to you, but I have my concerns about this as a major focus of training.

IMHO, there should be an equal balance of slow, med., and fast pace workouts. Slow speed obviously has its benefits.

Mike

 

[Colin_Linz]

As I stated earlier, we use a number of different forms of randori for different reasons. We do a half speed randori where the emphasis is on a relaxed and playful feeling. The reasoning behind this is to allow the participants to experiment and try to incorporate a range of techniques. This just won’t happen in the high tension environment of full contact, where people will just fall back to natural and previously trained responses. Of course there is still a need for full contact as well as other forms of randori to work on the full skill sets that are needed.

 

[Rook]

Speed and strength are awesome, until your turn 50 and lose them.​

And I suppose that fine motor coodination doesn't decline with age either. As to the age 50 comment, Dan Severn is 53 and still competing in pro level MMA. As for self-defense, Jack Dempsy (a boxer) knocked out two people while sitting down in a taxi cab with one punch apiece at age 80 - an incident corroborated by more than two dozen witnesses and listed a police report, testified to in court, and reported in the papers. I doubt most people of any age could do any better.