What is really the difference between TMA and MMA? False Dichotomy...

[drewtoby]

In a competition sense yes.

That is our goal in Hapkido as well. Be able to apply and adapt to grabs, strikes, weapons, etc. Not much different at all. Just a different way to get to the goal.

 

[Steve]

That is our goal in Hapkido as well. Be able to apply and adapt to grabs, strikes, weapons, etc. Not much different at all. Just a different way to get to the goal.

Is Hapkido a TMA, a sport or both?

 

[Ironcrane]

I have an idea. Not sure how well it works for more clear definition but, let's see.
Instead of MMA, and TMA, how about kickboxing/grappling styles, and non kickboxing/grappling styles? I can't think of an overall term for non kickboxing/grappling styles.

 

[swordway]

(skribs) I agree with your entire post but would like to add, you left out one very important reason for studying ma, which, when I began training in the 1970's, was one of the most important: namely, the development of your own character - 'the way.' With the current fads focusing almost exclusively on self-defense, competition and the broadest definition of martial arts which subsequently includes firearms, helicopter gunships and blanket bombing, personal enlightenment, self discovery, defeating the self, etc, etc, seem to have disappeared off the agenda.

When your focus is solely competition or self defense, when the emphasis is simply within the confines of what you can achieve, rather than the quest for something you can never achieve, the chances of you practicing for a lifetime diminish. When the emphases is obtaining the obtainable, your 'art' becomes simply another sport or hobby which one is likely to cease once your body can no longer win competitions or defeat the mugger. You mention Tai chi, I don't know much about this style but I do know the most common form of TC focuses on the internal development. And certainly, all the traditional ma I've studied, shotokan, yoseikan, Chang-hon tkd, entailed some attribute that went beyond the physical. With respect, your examples are mostly external - to do with, the body and when you mention 'art' it is without anything deeper than 'form' or 'technique'. To take BL's tacky line, you're focusing on the finger and not the moon. I guess what I'm trying to say is you've missed the spiritual, internal, philosophical aspects of ma, most especially traditional martial arts, which at one time were a defining yard stick. I'm sure its just an over sight but it does seem a constant trend among younger martial artists.

 

[Hanzou]

The difference is training methods. One incorporates thousand year old methods while the other incorporates more modern methods.

 

[RTKDCMB]

The difference is training methods. One incorporates thousand year old methods while the other incorporates more modern methods.

Welcome back. So basically you are saying that one is new and the other has been around for a while.

 

[Dirty Dog]

The difference is training methods. One incorporates thousand year old methods while the other incorporates more modern methods.

Not necessarily. Certainly taekwondo is an example of a TMA that (in most schools) uses modern training methods.

 

[Hanzou]

Welcome back.

Thank you.

So basically you are saying that one is new and the other has been around for a while.

The training methods, not the art itself. For example, Bjj is about as old as Shotokan. However Bjj incorporates modern training methods while Shotokan is still trained like it was back in the 1920s, which in turn are training methods from old Okinawan Karate and CMA. Muay Thai is thousands of years old, but most MT schools utilize very modern training methods taken from modern boxing and sports science.

 

[Hanzou]

Not necessarily. Certainly taekwondo is an example of a TMA that (in most schools) uses modern training methods.

TKD is reformed Shotokan and Shito Ryu Karate, and it still uses its methods (katas for example), so I would still label it a TMA.

The problem with striking arts is that if they remove their traditional methods, they'd all start to look very similar (i.e. Kickboxing). Thus, I can understand their desire to remain traditional.

 

[Steve]

Thank you.



The training methods, not the art itself. For example, Bjj is about as old as Shotokan. However Bjj incorporates modern training methods while Shotokan is still trained like it was back in the 1920s, which in turn are training methods from old Okinawan Karate and CMA. Muay Thai is thousands of years old, but most MT schools utilize very modern training methods taken from modern boxing and sports science.

Do you really think that the student experience in a modern shotokan school is the same as for students in the early 20th century?

 

[K-man]

Thank you.
The training methods, not the art itself. For example, Bjj is about as old as Shotokan. However Bjj incorporates modern training methods while Shotokan is still trained like it was back in the 1920s, which in turn are training methods from old Okinawan Karate and CMA. Muay Thai is thousands of years old, but most MT schools utilize very modern training methods taken from modern boxing and sports science.

Shotokan got its name from the dojo that was built in 1936 so 1920's is not really correct. Also Shotokan karate is nothing like any Okinawan karate I have seen and absolutely nothing like CMAs. Shotokan to me is a relatively modern form of martial art. The Japanese view of traditional is, "has the style changed from when the art was originally developed". As a result Isshin Ryu karate, that is relatively modern (1956), is recognised by the Okinawans as a traditional form of karate as it is still trained the way Shimabuku trained.
:asian:

 

[donnaTKD]

i think that you would hope so - you would hope that the way it's taught and the people that turn up are motivated by the same things as they were a hundred years ago but i don't thinik it is.

in todays world everyone wants everything now and if it costs they just put it on the plastic and that's it sort of "i'll have a black belt" that'll be $2000 "ok here you go (hands over card)"

i don't think that TMA's have got the "glitz" and "glamour" that the likes of MMA has gained which is part of the reason why they're taught differently. TMA's are what some would call "old school" and MMA is the "new kid on the block".

i honestly don't think that you could do a fair comparison between TMA and MMA they both have their differences -- MMA borrows everything from various MA's so should it not be called a TMA given that all the moves started life in a TMA ?????

 

[Hanzou]

Do you really think that the student experience in a modern shotokan school is the same as for students in the early 20th century?

If it isn't, the instructors do their best to make it as close to that experience as possible.

Shotokan got its name from the dojo that was built in 1936 so 1920's is not really correct. Also Shotokan karate is nothing like any Okinawan karate I have seen and absolutely nothing like CMAs. Shotokan to me is a relatively modern form of martial art. The Japanese view of traditional is, "has the style changed from when the art was originally developed". As a result Isshin Ryu karate, that is relatively modern (1956), is recognised by the Okinawans as a traditional form of karate as it is still trained the way Shimabuku trained.

I said 1920s because Funakoshi was teaching his style in Japan in the 1920s. It just didn't get its name until the 1930s.

I would say that Shotoakn falls under the Japanese definition of a traditional martial art.

 

[K-man]

If it isn't, the instructors do their best to make it as close to that experience as possible.

I said 1920s because Funakoshi was teaching his style in Japan in the 1920s. It just didn't get its name until the 1930s.

I would say that Shotoakn falls under the Japanese definition of a traditional martial art.

The reason it is not 'traditional' from the Japanese perspective is that it is not taught as Funakoshi taught it or wanted it taught. It was changed by the JKA.

Funakoshi's interpretation of the word kara to mean "empty" was reported to have caused some recoil in Okinawa, prompting Funakoshi to remain in Tokyo indefinitely. In 1949 Funakoshi's students created the Japan Karate Association (JKA), with Funakoshi as the honorary head of the organization. However in practise this organization was led by Masatoshi Nakayama. The JKA began formalizing Funakoshi's teachings. Funakoshi was not supportive of all of the changes that the JKA eventually made to his karate style.
Gichin Funakoshi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So what changes did he oppose? Traditional Okinawan karate does not have competitive sparring and Funakoshi had a traditional Okinawan background.

In 1927, three men, Miki, Bo and Hirayama decided that kata practice was not enough and tried to introduce jiyukumite (free-fighting). They devised protective clothig and used kendo masks in their matches in order to utilize full contact. Funakoshi heard about these bouts and, when he could not discourage such attempts at what he considered belittling to the art of karate, he stopped coming to the Shichi-Tokudo. Both Funakoshi and his top student, Otsuka, never showed their faces there again.
Gichin Funakoshi - Shotokan Karate-Do International Federation

So traditional? Or the same as the 1920s? :hmm:

 

[drop bear]

If it isn't, the instructors do their best to make it as close to that experience as possible.



I said 1920s because Funakoshi was teaching his style in Japan in the 1920s. It just didn't get its name until the 1930s.

I would say that Shotoakn falls under the Japanese definition of a traditional martial art.

OK there is just a lot of fuzzy in the idea.

So if I do traditional MA but supliment it with cross fit. Am I still doing traditional?

Even easier. If I am doing traditional cripple some guy call them an ambulance or use modern first aid am I still doing traditional.

I think you will find very few styles that do not take advantage of modern training methods.

 

[Buka]

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Quote attributed to Middleweight fighter, Billy Shakes, during the dojo wars of 1597 between Montague's Martial Arts and Capulet Karate-Do.

I heard it got ugly at the end.

 

[RTKDCMB]

The difference is training methods. One incorporates thousand year old methods while the other incorporates more modern methods.

So what would you classify as a modern training method?

 

[Hanzou]

So what would you classify as a modern training method?

Generally what you find in the more sport-based styles like boxing, or MMA. No forms, no chambered punching, no training with ancient weaponry.

 

[donnaTKD]

what ancient weaponry these days --- a stick is a stick a staff made out of whatever is to hand is modern cos the materials that were used are now depleted.

and training methods - there's a lot more science involved whether you know it or not - the stretches, the warm ups, the warm down and stretch off at the end of the session --- that's all modern and applicable to both formats.

from a physical point of view the only thing i can think of would be the intensity that training is done with. every MA has it's forms and ways of doing things so you can't say that that's just in TMA --- MMAers might not stand in front of mirror practising them but they are there - it's just done in a different way.

and since MIXED MARTIAL ARTS was born out of combining tma's then it's traditional in all but application.

 

[Hanzou]

what ancient weaponry these days --- a stick is a stick a staff made out of whatever is to hand is modern cos the materials that were used are now depleted.

We both know that the staff isn't the only ancient martial art weapon practiced.

and training methods - there's a lot more science involved whether you know it or not - the stretches, the warm ups, the warm down and stretch off at the end of the session --- that's all modern and applicable to both formats.

Where did I say that traditional styles use NO modern training practices?

from a physical point of view the only thing i can think of would be the intensity that training is done with. every MA has it's forms and ways of doing things so you can't say that that's just in TMA --- MMAers might not stand in front of mirror practising them but they are there - it's just done in a different way.

There's a pretty big difference between say shadow boxing/hitting the heavy bag/drilling, and doing a pre-arranged routine over and over again.

and since MIXED MARTIAL ARTS was born out of combining tma's then it's traditional in all but application.

I doubt many traditional MA stylists/masters would be pleased with how MMA merges styles, drops techniques, and mashes everything together to the point where individual styles are almost lost completely.