What Is A TMA?

[Tony Dismukes]

Hey, Tony,

I don't really think it's that circular, honestly. If we were only looking at single systems in isolation, then yeah, I'd be with you… however we have many, many, many "Traditional Martial Arts" that we can compare and cross-reference. But my point is that accepting that someone says what they do is "TMA", when it plainly isn't, doesn't do a thing when it comes to defining what TMA actually are.

Take a look at the fake "ninjitsu" systems out there… they're not in any way genuine, they're not in any way "traditional", they're not in any way Japanese in most cases… should we class them as actually "ninjutsu" as part of an effort to define the art, just because some deluded people think that's what they're doing?

How about if someone trained in a bit of Judo, did some Arnis, added some Capoeira, and called it BJJ? Do we accept that that (hypothetical) "art" actually is BJJ? Or do we compare and contrast it with known BJJ to properly define and categorise it?

The problem is that there is no universal (or even mostly universal) agreement about which arts fall into that box of many, many, many traditional arts. If we mostly agreed upon which arts fall into the TMA category, then we could derive a definition from observing the common characteristics of the examples in that category. If we mostly agreed upon a definition, then we could decide which arts to include or exclude from the category based on the definition. Since we don't have common ground on either starting point, then it's silly for any one of us to declare that our definition or our categorization is objectively the factually correct one.

With regards to your hypotheticals, there is universal acceptance that "BJJ" is the term for the (mostly grappling with a heavy emphasis on groundwork) art coming out of Brazil in the 20th century developed by the Gracie family (and their students) (and Luiz Franca and his students) from an initial introduction to Judo as taught by Mitsuyo Maeda. If someone was to call an unrelated art "BJJ" they would be using the term in a way unconnected to any common usage of the term and would probably be doing it in a conscious attempt to fool people.

"Ninjutsu" gets a little more complicated, since the common usage covers a few options.

There are the actual historical Japanese espionage arts, elements of which may or may not survive to the present day.
There are the X-Kans and their derived splinter organizations, some of which use or have used the "ninjutsu" label even though only 3 of the 9 Takamatsuden arts are identified as ninjutsu and none of those 3 are known for sure to go back further than Takamatsu himself.
There is the movie image of the black-clad assassin disappearing in a puff of smoke.

In the case of folks claiming to train ninjutsu, I'd look at what they're actually claiming their art to be.

If they are claiming to teach a specific historical Japanese art, then I'd look at whether they can back that claim up. (Probably not.)
If they are coming from the X-Kans or their spinoffs, then I'd kind of prefer they didn't call it ninjutsu, since even if the 3 arts in question are legitimate, they make up only a small percentage of the X-Kan training. Still, I'll give them a pass since they might possibly have a link to an actual historical ninjutsu tradition or three.
If they claim to be teaching the fantasy as shown in the movies, then they are delusional or liars since that doesn't exist in the real world.
If they claim to be teaching something else and just using the term ninjutsu, then I would point out that they are using the word incorrectly since it doesn't match any commonly accepted usage.

"TMA" is much more problematic because we don't have agreement on what the term means or which arts fall into that bucket. I commonly see TKD referred to as a TMA and BJJ referred to as not a TMA. How does that make any sense when BJJ is older than TKD? BJJ has evolved, but not any more so than TKD. You can find instructors teaching old-school BJJ just as easily as you can find instructors teaching old-school TKD.

Probably most people would accept the koryu arts as being TMA, but once you move past them you're going to find very little universal agreement.

Depending on who you ask, a TMA might be:

An art that has existed for a certain length of time.
An art that has existed unchanged for a certain length of time.
An art that has existed unchanged since its formulation by its founder.
An art with certain cultural signifiers (rituals, attitudes toward instructors, etc)
An art with an accurate historical record and unbroken lineage of instructors.
An art with a certain set of values (which may vary according to who is offering the definition)
An art with a certain set of training methods (which may vary according to who is offering the definition)

Personally I don't care which definition you use, as long as you make it clear beforehand so I know what you're talking about.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I can count over 20 MMA schools that have opened and closed in my area in the last 15 years and a few more before that as well. They close because they lose their students as usually the colored belt instructor or group leader or study group or what ever is not worried about safety and the training of others and only worried about their own training. As most will not go to a lower rank student to learn they usually are the most skilled in the club and can protect themselves. Others not so lucky as the number of people I have seen come through my small school that were there because someone on purpose broke their arm after then had already tapped out.

Yeesh, Rich. Where do you live with all these out-of-control MMA wannabees starting gyms?

I train at a well-established MMA/BJJ gym that has been going for about 15 years so far. I've never seen or heard about anyone refusing to release their sparring partner after a tap. Someone who did that at our gym would be tossed out on their *** so quick it wouldn't be funny. We don't tolerate that kind of behavior.

 

[Hanzou]

It has the potential to have some application… that's a very different thing to suggesting that not having a highly developed ground fighting "game" is a "hole" in a training construct you don't understand.

Semantics? Who said anything about needing a "highly developed ground fighting game"? The discussion revolved around having knowledge of fighting on the ground. You don't need to be a black belt in Bjj to fill that hole, but a self defense system that doesn't have at least an intermediate level of ground fighting knowledge would have a pretty decent hole.

Actually, no… K-man mentioned that some might make the argument that the lack of a "developed ground game" could be considered a "hole", but that that was not considered accurate in the systems he teaches (nor mine, for the record)… Steve started saying that the lack was a "obvious hole"… it isn't. That's the point. It's only an "obvious hole" if it's meant to be addressed, or considered valuable enough to dedicate the time to it. In K-man's training, and in mine, it just doesn't have the benefit to justify the trade-off in training other, more practical, and beneficial methods.

Except that it is an obvious hole, because not being able to fight from that position is a major disadvantage. This has been proven over and over again. And no, that proof didn't just come from the cage or MMA.

Oh, and your comments like "his incredulous statement" don't help you… it really just shows that you're unable to see past your own nose, and are unwilling to learn anything beyond what you think is "real".

I think admitting that I have holes in my training shows a bit more hubris and willingness to learn than stating that my training is perfect and has no holes.

That's just my opinion though.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Tony,

I do not see to many mma wanabee gyms here in Las Vegas but back in Michigan. Whoa, there have been some terrible ones. Just terrible! So bad one of my students who had been training with us for about a year moved and went north in Michigan. He was trying to find a place to train so he tried out several schools. The mma one was one of the first. He went in, tried a class and was surprised that everyone was so tense in training. Then they rolled. He was amazed it was all muscle and very little technique. The kicker for him why he did not train there was that after rolling with the instructor he realized he wasn't going to learn anything. Yes, he submitted the instructor twice. There have been a lot of bad mma gyms in Michigan and I would venture throughout the Midwest.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Tony,

I do not see to many mma wanabee gyms here in Las Vegas but back in Michigan. Whoa, there have been some terrible ones. Just terrible! So bad one of my students who had been training with us for about a year moved and went north in Michigan. He was trying to find a place to train so he tried out several schools. The mma one was one of the first. He went in, tried a class and was surprised that everyone was so tense in training. Then they rolled. He was amazed it was all muscle and very little technique. The kicker for him why he did not train there was that after rolling with the instructor he realized he wasn't going to learn anything. Yes, he submitted the instructor twice. There have been a lot of bad mma gyms in Michigan and I would venture throughout the Midwest.

I wonder if it's primarily the areas without legitimate instructors that have no-nothing knuckleheads popping up to fill the void. Both my current gym and my original gym in Ohio are run by BJJ black belts and have produced successful professional fighters. Any bozo gyms that were opened up in our area would have been facing some stiff competition.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Absolutely I would say that this is the case. I know in Michigan the amature mma scene is pretty good and I can remember a lot of and I will call them loosely gyms popping up. Usually a high school wrestler or some one with even less experience running them. They do not last to long but they are around.

Now back to what is a TMA!!!

 

[K-man]

The metaphor breaks down. There are at least two people involved in an altercation. You can choose not to cook Asian food. No one else is involved. You can't decide alone that a fight stays standing. Someone else has influence.

Also, the stakes are higher in self defense than in cooking.

I am talking about defining tma. You're yhe one who's talking about cooking. So unless you're using the royal 'we' consider speaking for yourself. You may disagree but that doesn't mean my post is off topic.

Agreed, you can't choose to not go to the ground but you can tailor your training so it is less likely you will go to the ground. I have done a small amount of ground grappling, enough I believe to get me out of trouble against most people without extensive ground fighting experience. If I am taken to the ground in a real fight it will be no holds barred. I might get hammered but if I get the opportunity to apply my training it won't be pretty.

So if you're defining TMA, perhaps you could give us your thoughts on how we can define what I believe is not possible to define without a context.
:asian:

 

[Steve]

Agreed, you can't choose to not go to the ground but you can tailor your training so it is less likely you will go to the ground. I have done a small amount of ground grappling, enough I believe to get me out of trouble against most people without extensive ground fighting experience. If I am taken to the ground in a real fight it will be no holds barred. I might get hammered but if I get the opportunity to apply my training it won't be pretty.

So if you're defining TMA, perhaps you could give us your thoughts on how we can define what I believe is not possible to define without a context.
:asian:

If you don't know my definition, you haven't read my posts. :Asian:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jezr74]

Absolutely I would say that this is the case. I know in Michigan the amature mma scene is pretty good and I can remember a lot of and I will call them loosely gyms popping up. Usually a high school wrestler or some one with even less experience running them. They do not last to long but they are around.

Now back to what is a TMA!!!

Here is you virtual gavel.

View attachment $vgavel.jpg

 

[K-man]

I don't believe anyone said that Bjj is the perfect system, but it has a pretty damn good track record because it addresses a pretty important, yet often neglected combat range. Kman was the one who said he has no holes in his training, not any Bjj exponent on this forum.

And again you mis-quote. Are you illiterate or just trying to annoy? This is what I actually said.

Originally posted by K-man
From my perspective, there are no holes in my training. If I wanted to be involved in MMA I would train MMA. I have trained in a number of styles of MA and reckon I have most bases covered.

Let me explain it to you again in simple terms. Training is to suit your own needs. If you want to box in the Olympics then you train to that rule set. You don't need to become a specialist wrestler as well. If your desire is to be the next world champion UFC fighter you are going to have to train all areas you are going to encounter in the ring. That includes striking, grappling and ground. I have no desire to do that. I want to train in a reality based system and be proficient in it. I have identified different areas at different times that I felt were required to increase my knowledge. For example, in my earlier karate training we had no grappling at all. I didn't even know there was grappling in karate. To understand that side of my training better I began learning Aikido. Most of that training is directly applicable to my karate. In my earlier training I was taught to strike in the fashion that you dissed in an earlier thread. When I realised that what we were being taught was fundamentally flawed I took steps to learn how to strike more effectively. When I got to train in Okinawa I found I had just reinvented the wheel. The way they were striking was the same as I had discovered in my research. And it goes on. I have done enough basic grappling to be confident on the ground. My Systema and Krav training is all about getting back off the ground. All that I incorporate into my karate classes. It is interesting to note, there is hardly a technique in Krav that is not in Goju. After all there are a finite number of ways you can strike, bend or twist the body.

So, I am a little amused you say it is me saying I have no holes in my training, which is after all is from my perspective, yet it is only BJJ/MMA wannabes that are saying my training is flawed.

Now before the genuine BJJ/MMA guys jump in, I am not referring to you. I love BJJ and if I was forty years younger I'd be there. I just take offence at people with no knowledge of other people's training or ability sniping at everything that doesn't fit their own model.

 

[K-man]

No one accused Kman of anything. Kman himself said that he had no holes in his training. I think that was quite an interesting statement, and wanted to know if he passed that belief onto his students. You're the one who decided to hop in and defend his incredulous statement for whatever reason.

Only incredulous because you either can't read or don't want to accept what is written in the context it is written! I never said I had no holes in my training. I did say I had most bases covered.

 

[K-man]

You have picked up on the new name, yeah? Got the reference yet?

I'm not sure that many Americans learn British history. But then I can't talk ... I barrack for Collingwood. irate4:

 

[K-man]

If I had to genuinely define TMA, it would be about the priorities of the style. If the most important instructional priority at your school is that you do things as much like your instructor as possible, you are likely training in a TMA.

So when you start training in say BJJ for example, you are saying that if the student learns from you then goes and teaches what he has learned, his style is a TMA. But if he adds to it or subtracts from it, it is not.

My opinion remains that if your primary goal (successful or not) is to pass on your "system" in the same manner as you learned it from your instructor, you are likely in a "TMA."

Again, I would say that would really describe most BJJ that I have seen.

Is training "fundamentally the same" as your instructor and his/her instructors the most (or perhaps one of the most) important priorities of your style? If yes, you're probably training in a style that self identifies as "Traditional." My opinion remains that this is the simplest and most accurate definition of a traditional martial art. Applying this test, below are how I'd categorize some styles.

Non-traditional: BJJ, Boxing, MMA, TKD (depending on the school, can be either), Krav Maga, Arnis

Traditional: TKD (depending on the school) most Karate styles (maybe all), Judo, Muay Thai, every style of CMA I can think of, Aikido

BJJ, for example, can be considered a traditional MA in some ways, but I don't think it meets the most important test, which is to answer the question above. BJJ continues to evolve and students are encouraged to explore new techniques and tactics. The upside down guard video is a good example of this, even if it's not the wisest tactic for self defense. This doesn't address holes in training, which may exist. It doesn't address the origin of the style. It only answers the question, "Is this style traditional?" And BJJ is not.

Hang about .. BJJ is not traditional. Boxing has barely changed at all yet it is not traditional.

Most karate is traditional yet most of it has very little in common with the original system?

I agree that most Aikido is traditional and a lot of the CMAs but I can't see the link to most Karate.

And this is also beside the point of defining tma. For example, Bjj has holes and is not a tma. Wing chun has holes and is a tma.

And the relevance is? A system will only have holes in it if there is a fundamental aspect missing that makes it unsuitable for its purpose.

If you don't know my definition, you haven't read my posts. :Asian:

I have read and reread all your posts. They seem to lack consistency.

Oh! By the way ... :Asian: needs a small 'a'.

 

[Steve]

So when you start training in say BJJ for example, you are saying that if the student learns from you then goes and teaches what he has learned, his style is a TMA. But if he adds to it or subtracts from it, it is not.

Again, I would say that would really describe most BJJ that I have seen.


Hang about .. BJJ is not traditional. Boxing has barely changed at all yet it is not traditional.

Most karate is traditional yet most of it has very little in common with the original system?

I agree that most Aikido is traditional and a lot of the CMAs but I can't see the link to most Karate.




And the relevance is? A system will only have holes in it if there is a fundamental aspect missing that makes it unsuitable for its purpose.


I have read and reread all your posts. They seem to lack consistency.

Oh! By the way ... :Asian: needs a small 'a'.

Kman, I sincerely believe that I've been clear And consistent. If you want to stop being a smartass and have a genuine question for me, by all means, ask. I'm happy to explain. Really. I'll do my best. But, if I'm being honest, I don't actually think you have a question. I think you get my point just fine, and you're just trying to be entirely too clever.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[K-man]

Originally Posted by Chris Parker It has the potential to have some application… that's a very different thing to suggesting that not having a highly developed ground fighting "game" is a "hole" in a training construct you don't understand.
Semantics? Who said anything about needing a "highly developed ground fighting game"? The discussion revolved around having knowledge of fighting on the ground. You don't need to be a black belt in Bjj to fill that hole, but a self defense system that doesn't have at least an intermediate level of ground fighting knowledge would have a pretty decent hole.

Semantics? Who said anything about needing a "highly developed ground fighting game"? The discussion revolved around having knowledge of fighting on the ground. You don't need to be a black belt in Bjj to fill that hole, but a self defense system that doesn't have at least an intermediate level of ground fighting knowledge would have a pretty decent hole.

I have said time after time that I have a sufficient level of ground fighting skill, most of which is designed to get back off the ground.

Originally Posted by Chris Parker Actually, no… K-man mentioned that some might make the argument that the lack of a "developed ground game" could be considered a "hole", but that that was not considered accurate in the systems he teaches (nor mine, for the record)… Steve started saying that the lack was a "obvious hole"… it isn't. That's the point. It's only an "obvious hole" if it's meant to be addressed, or considered valuable enough to dedicate the time to it. In K-man's training, and in mine, it just doesn't have the benefit to justify the trade-off in training other, more practical, and beneficial methods.
Except that it is an obvious hole, because not being able to fight from that position is a major disadvantage. This has been proven over and over again. And no, that proof didn't just come from the cage or MMA.

Except that it is an obvious hole, because not being able to fight from that position is a major disadvantage. This has been proven over and over again. And no, that proof didn't just come from the cage or MMA.

So what has that to do with me, my training or what I teach? Where is the obvious hole? I have undertaken what I believe is sufficient training for my needs. If I was wanting to climb into an MMA ring tomorrow I admit, there is a hole in my training. Seeing I am never going to be in an MMA ring, why is there an obvious hole? How do you know what I can do on the ground? Your impressions come from your original fallacious proposition that if a style was not represented in the MMA ring it is ineffective.

Originally Posted by Chris Parker Oh, and your comments like "his incredulous statement" don't help you… it really just shows that you're unable to see past your own nose, and are unwilling to learn anything beyond what you think is "real".
I think admitting that I have holes in my training shows a bit more hubris and willingness to learn than stating that my training is perfect and has no holes.

I think admitting that I have holes in my training shows a bit more hubris and willingness to learn than stating that my training is perfect and has no holes.

That's just my opinion though.

Well, I'm glad you admit you have holes in your training and it is fortunate that you are young enough to remedy them. I have had over thirty years to do that so although my training is not perfect and by your definition has some holes in it, I think it pretty much covers everything I need.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Yeesh, Rich. Where do you live with all these out-of-control MMA wannabees starting gyms?

I train at a well-established MMA/BJJ gym that has been going for about 15 years so far. I've never seen or heard about anyone refusing to release their sparring partner after a tap. Someone who did that at our gym would be tossed out on their *** so quick it wouldn't be funny. We don't tolerate that kind of behavior.

I am in Grand Blanc, just south of Flint. the Number 20 was low in case I called out on trying to name them.

There are a few good schools with legitimate instructors.


Problems are two fold in my opinion. 1) People want to be at the top of the bow chain and open their school. 2) People want to do it their way and make their name as they have an idea that they can change the world because they chae done good in a couple of fights.

Tony,

I do not see to many mma wanabee gyms here in Las Vegas but back in Michigan. Whoa, there have been some terrible ones. Just terrible! So bad one of my students who had been training with us for about a year moved and went north in Michigan. He was trying to find a place to train so he tried out several schools. The mma one was one of the first. He went in, tried a class and was surprised that everyone was so tense in training. Then they rolled. He was amazed it was all muscle and very little technique. The kicker for him why he did not train there was that after rolling with the instructor he realized he wasn't going to learn anything. Yes, he submitted the instructor twice. There have been a lot of bad mma gyms in Michigan and I would venture throughout the Midwest.

Yes, some good, and many bad that move and or close up.

I wonder if it's primarily the areas without legitimate instructors that have no-nothing knuckleheads popping up to fill the void. Both my current gym and my original gym in Ohio are run by BJJ black belts and have produced successful professional fighters. Any bozo gyms that were opened up in our area would have been facing some stiff competition.

As I stated above, there are some. Many people do not like to drive more than 5 miles to get their groceries, pizza or their martial arts training.
Given as stated above the ego's and people who do not want to put in the work to learn to train others and or themselves then you have what I have seen locally.

Absolutely I would say that this is the case. I know in Michigan the amature mma scene is pretty good and I can remember a lot of and I will call them loosely gyms popping up. Usually a high school wrestler or some one with even less experience running them. They do not last to long but they are around.

Now back to what is a TMA!!!

I apologize Brian for the tangent. I will get back to what is a TMA.

 

[K-man]

Kman, I sincerely believe that I've been clear And consistent. If you want to stop being a smartass and have a genuine question for me, by all means, ask. I'm happy to explain. Really. I'll do my best. But, if I'm being honest, I don't actually think you have a question. I think you get my point just fine, and you're just trying to be entirely too clever.

Mate I haven't a problem with your position. It is just that you seem to be consistently behind Hanzou with his incessant sniping. I assume when you 'like' his post you agree and approve of it.

So let's look at a few posts.

Originally Posted by K-man You can argue that without a strong ground game a martial art may have a hole in its training but the Okinawans would possibly argue that they are not training to fight on the ground and if they were to go there they would be trying to get up, not stay rolling around.

And so, training like their instructor is more important than addressing obvious holes in their technique.

You jump in to state categorically that there is an obvious hole in their training. I offered the counter arguement which you chose to ignore. I find that offensive and totally lacking in respect as I said they are not training to fight on the ground. It is your opinion and one I suggest is wrong.

Originally Posted by K-man
Not really. I don't look at it as an obvious hole in the training. I was saying that others may suggest that there was a hole. It depends on perspective. I have no desire to fight on the ground and I certainly don't want to fight in a ring. Chances are that I will never need to use my skills in a real situation and even if I did I doubt it would involve staying on the ground. From my perspective there is no hole.

In a worst case scenario, you can choose not to fight in a ring. You may not be able to choose not to fight on the ground. That's a hole in the training. But you're right, if you're training for fun, there's nothing wrong with doing what you want. But that doesn't mean the hole is gone. It just means that you're choosing to ignore it, or in denial that it exists.

As I said it is a matter of perspective. You have no idea of my ground skills. As a trained BJJ guy you may well best me in a fair fight but then you might get a nasty surprise in a real one. To tell me I have a hole in my training is again offensive.

Originally Posted by K-man
Certainly. You guys seem to be hung up on getting down on the ground. Why doesn't Krav incorporate more BJJ? Why doesn't Systema teach more on the ground? What about combatives or Silat? The answer is, none of them are interested in sport. None of them are interested in fighting on the ground. I can't speak for those styles I do not train but certainly I don't believe there is a hole in any of my training.

I'm not hung up on fighting at any range, but I acknowledge that a fight can happen at any range. I'm not interested in striking. AND that is a hole in my training.

I can freely acknowledge the holes in my training. Why can't you?

Well again, I asked a question that you ignored and you again restated I had holes in my training. You have no idea of my ground fighting ability yet you keep pursuing the issue. If you want to look at my overall training I have holes. For example my knowledge of traditional weapons is woefully inadequate, but since I am more interested in reality based fighting that is pretty much irrelevant. I don't have a vast number of judo like throws in my armoury. To me that doesn't matter because that type of throwing is not part of my training. I don't train jumping or spinning kicks or high kicks for that matter. I'm not saying they can't be useful, just they are not relevant for me. So because I haven't studied ground fighting to a high degree I have a hole in my training. Again, I would suggest that is arrogant on your part. As to the lack of striking being a hole. I would disagree. It is not always necessary or even desirable unless you are into a sport that requires striking skills.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XX3kucj_b_8

So I'm not trying to be a smartarse and I'm not trying to be clever. I will admit to being a little testy. Perhaps we could discuss things more rationally if you tempered your responses.

 

[drop bear]

I have said time after time that I have a sufficient level of ground fighting skill, most of which is designed to get back off the ground.



So what has that to do with me, my training or what I teach? Where is the obvious hole? I have undertaken what I believe is sufficient training for my needs. If I was wanting to climb into an MMA ring tomorrow I admit, there is a hole in my training. Seeing I am never going to be in an MMA ring, why is there an obvious hole? How do you know what I can do on the ground? Your impressions come from your original fallacious proposition that if a style was not represented in the MMA ring it is ineffective.

Well, I'm glad you admit you have holes in your training and it is fortunate that you are young enough to remedy them. I have had over thirty years to do that so although my training is not perfect and by your definition has some holes in it, I think it pretty much covers everything I need.

Regarding ground fighting. My coach can get off the ground whenever he wants. I can't. So I would suggest my ground fighting skill is not sufficient.

We call him the slippery gypsy for just that reason.

 

[K-man]

Regarding ground fighting. My coach can get off the ground whenever he wants. I can't. So I would suggest my ground fighting skill is not sufficient.

We call him the slippery gypsy for just that reason.

Cool, but are you really training to escape or to submit you partner? I'm not doubting that at the top level you could choose either option. I have no doubt given time on the ground your skills would be much greater than mine but I can live with that. My training is in other directions.
:asian:

 

[drop bear]

Cool, but are you really training to escape or to submit you partner? I'm not doubting that at the top level you could choose either option. I have no doubt given time on the ground your skills would be much greater than mine but I can live with that. My training is in other directions.
:asian:

Stand up sweep submit is the order of our mma. You can't lay under someone for too long or you will get your face smashed in.

We almost never submit people. Underneath unless it is staring me in the face I will be getting on top or standing.

On top unless it is given to me I am punching. So for the most part sub's are a GNP where the other guy just gives his neck or his back so that he can go home.

But we do high pressure wrestling based mma.


Eg.
My coach.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kqtZ9HqPJWw