In another thread, a poster informed me that Brazilian Jiujitsu and other grappling arts had a distinct advantage in the first UFC, which caused many TMA practitioners to get easily defeated in the early UFC competitions. Clearly this advantage has continued 20 years later, because TMA is still absent from the curriculum of many MMA practitioners, who choose Muay Thai kickboxing or Bjj over Wing Chun, Eagle Claw Kung Fu, Aikido, or Shorin Ryu Karate.
Why is this the case? What makes some styles have such a distinct disadvantage in combat sports, while other styles tend to dominate?
Context and emphasis. They're not designed for it, they don't care about it, it is nothing to do with the way they're set up.
You're still wanting to apply a single context and meaning to all systems, and it just doesn't work that way. You might as well as why doesn't everyone learn French because you had a great holiday in Paris… ignoring that other people don't want to go to France, but want to go to South Aftrica… or Japan… or Bali… or not go anywhere at all.
The short answer is training method. The early UFCs certainly highlighted the ground grappling range, and that wasn't just with regard to TMA, you had legit kickboxers and boxers (combat sports specialists) who just hadn't studied the range losing as well.
Groups that train their techniques against resisting opponents are generally going to do better than those groups that don't.
Yep, but you have to look at why that training method is chosen… realistically, the training method of MMA is geared towards success and application in MMA… non-MMA training isn't…
I definitely see your point, but all things being equal, why can't a karate practitioner simply out maneuver a grappler and punch and kick them into submission? I mean, there's a difference between rules that completely eliminate your ability to fight (like a grappler not being allowed to grapple), but what rules limit a Karate or Kung Fu practitioner from beating the crap out of an opponent with footwork, kicks, and punches?
Why do you think they can't?
Here's the thing… there's a big difference between applying such a tactic in a ring, which is designed for a competition with a focus or emphasis on ground work, and is therefore softer, and slower than other surfaces, against an opponent who knows you're going to be actively fighting them, and applying it in the outside world…
Well why doesn't TMA work in the ring by default? Why do I need to do extra work to make a fighting art work in an environment with light restrictions? If a TMA training method is to stop an adversary with a punch or a kk, what exactly is preventing this same fighter from doing it in the ring as opposed to the street? Does the inability to strike the neck or the groin render some TMA styles completely useless?
If we took this in reverse, would anyone here doubt that Floyd Mayweather could knock someone out in a streetfight, just like he can in the ring? Does anyone doubt that Rickson Gracie could choke out someone outside the cage as well as inside? Anyone think that Ronda Rousey couldn't throw some drunk a-hole to the ground and snap his arm? So why can the "sport arts" translate to various applications, but a TMA cannot?
Because fighting ain't fighting. There are huge discrepancies between different types/forms of conflict and fighting, and no single form addresses, or even attempts to address, all of them… or even many of them… let alone addresses them equally.
Yeah… gotta say, mate, I'm not fond of any of those… but more importantly, are we classing those as "TMA's"?
I'll say the "solo form training" is the major problem.
When you learn a form, it will become your burden for the rest of your life. The day that you throw away your forms, the day that you will be free. You can then concentrate on your
- kick,
- punch,
- lock,
- throw,
- ground work,
- ...
"Burden"? "Free"? I recognise the words, but this makes no sense…
In other words, this is completely wrong, and misses every single reason for forms existing. They aren't to teach technique… they're to teach tactical application of technique. Your approach is missing a lot…
Well yes, because Mayweather would have to deal with grappling, and Rickson wouldn't be allowed to grapple. However, NHB rules don't limit something like Kung Fu the way boxing rules would limit Rickson Gracie. Also, we all know that Boxing is heavily limited to hand techniques. TMAs are supposed to be complete systems of fighting, so they should cover all the bases, including grappling defense.
Am I wrong?
Yes. In almost every way possible.
TMA's are not "supposed to be complete systems of fighting"… I have no idea where you got that leap of illogic from… there's no rule or idea that they should "cover all the bases"… that, realistically, is a fallacy of modern systems… including MMA… which, itself, is missing huge areas.
Well no. I was merely pointing out that martial athletes are good fighters outside the cage as well as in. If you're a good fighter, you're a good fighter period. If the goal of a TMA is to develop a good fighter, why would a couple of rules hinder their abilities?
Again, extreme rule sets like Boxing, TKD, Judo are understandable, but we don't even see strong TMA representation in MMA/NHB where the rule sets aren't all that prohibitive for martial arts.
I train very traditional systems… how do you think I'd go in a true no-holds-barred situation, a real "no rules" contest…?
Realistically, though, you're still missing 99% of the reality of anything outside of your experience… which is fine… but you might want to start listening to those who do know this area a bit better than you do… the reality is that you simply can't use a single broad brush for all "TMA's"… they have far more differences than similarities, and far, far more than you seem to realise.
I think the sprawl is a wee bit more reliable than those counters.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vfmfM357Sdw
That's more like it.
I was actually explaining this defence to my guys a month or so back… and pointing out why we'd never consider such an action. In fact, we'd do something that you'd be told to never do in a competitive form… because it makes more sense, and is far safer (in our context) than a "sprawl" in this form…
I learned my 1st from when I was 7 years old. That was 60 years ago. I have learned more than 50 forms in my life. I understand the purpose of forms, but I still do not believe that form training has any "combat" value (it has health value and no argument on that).
The following training program is much more effective.
One can use
- partner training to "develop" skill,
- sparring/wrestling to "test" skill,
- equipment training to "enhance" skill,
- solo drill training to "polish" skill.
I can write a book about "why form training is a big waste of time from the combat point of view". But that will have nothing to do with this thread discussion.
Please don't. You'd be wrong before you started the first word… and we already have Antony Cummins doing that enough…
I used to train at a Relson Gjj school, and I agree that Relson and Rickson are moving more towards a TMA slant than other Bjj schools. I was actually going to make a thread about that in the Bjj forum, but decided to start this one first. I love what both of them are doing, and their philosophy about Bjj being more than guard jumping and butt scooting.
That said, there's a pretty big difference with how a Relson/Rickson Gracie school does MA and a TMA school does MA. Rickson and Relson want to move Bjj towards its roots, which is simpler, more brutal, and a lot less pretty. They're not advocating the practice of using 16th century farm equipment, and dozens of pre-arranged forms.
What do you think a TMA actually is? Cause, honestly… this is just a list of poorly understood stereotypes, with little basis or insight, let alone reality.
Well that's fairly morbid.
I believe the goal of most TMA systems is to offer an answer for as many situations as possible. I find it hard to believe that a system as old as Wing Chun for example doesn't offer an answer against a grappling opponent.
You're missing the context (oh, and I'm assuming you're also using the deeply flawed definition of grappling = ground fighting, yeah?). Still.
Kung fu works if it's trained against resistance and with a mind toward the ring. Cung le is a badass and I wish he'd made the transition to Mma as a younger man. But Kung fu alone won't work. You have to supplement the tma with a another tma, either cacc or freestyle wrestling, Bjj or judo.
Same with Karate, tkd, boxing or any other striking art.
The converse is also true.
Personally, the biggest impediment is mindset. My opinion is that it is common for people who train in some styles to seek out their holes. And uncommon in others.
"Impediment", Steve? No… not an impediment at all… anymore than the mindset of focusing on ground work is an impediment for BJJ practitioners… I mean, it really doesn't help them be good swordsmen…
My only issue with that is Korean and Japanese karate practitioners also consider themselves traditional stylists.
Why aren't they traditional stylists?
I have no problem with a takedown defense like that. My issue is the idea of defending a shoot with a kick to the face. I think that's a pretty laughable TD defense. I didnt get a detailed look at the second one, but that looked iffy as well.
To be honest, I agree with this… for a range of reasons… including that it only really works if the attacker keeps his head/upper body pretty upright, and is hesitant as he comes in… the second one would be quite a handful if the attacker didn't stop as soon as the defence started as well, for the record…
I would also point out that (here in the states at least) wrestling and American football are very common and popular sports taken up by the male population in secondary school and college. Football is the most popular sport in the US by a country mile. Thus, there's a higher than normal chance of running into someone who is highly trained in tackles and takedowns here in the US.
True… which is part of the culture there… and then influences the forms of violence found (the idea of one guy grabbing around the waist of the other, lifting them, and either slamming them, or running them backwards, is far more common in the US than here…
, which is starting to get into the idea of differing contexts…
You won't need form if you just train drills. Your drills may come from your forms but it doesn't have to be. After you have leaned a form, you take it apart, understand it, and then put it back together any way you want as long as it makes sense to you. The best lesson that I have learned in my life is one day my teacher told me that, "Form was designed for teaching and leaning only. It was not designed for training."
You use "partner drill" to develop your skill. You will learn your
- body alignment,
- power generation,
- footwork,
- ...
at this stage.
you then train "solo drill" at home when partner is not available. Since you have already developed your skill, you just use your solo drill to "polish" some minor detail that you may not pay enough attention when you train with partner.
Since your "solo drill" is just your "partner drill without partner", when you have learned the "partner drills", you will get "solo drills" by default. If you link your "solo drills" in a sequence, you will have your form. This form that you have created will truly belong to you.
I had created the following form many years ago. Do I train it? No. Do I ask my students to train it, No. It just serves as a text book, no more and no less. The first 13 moves are the 13 postures. Since the order of those postures are not important, there exist no value to train those 13 moves in sequence. The rest of 24 moves has many combos in it. It makes sense to train
- combo A as move 1, move 2,
- combo B as move 3, move 4, and move 5.
Since combo A and combo B has no logic connection, to train combo A and combo B together as move 1, move 2, move 3, move 4, move 5 is not necessary.
Uh… okay… that's not a form. It's a string of movements. If you think that's what a "form" is, then you really never learnt any… you only learnt mechanical sequences.
What if your instructors and his instructors aren't mistaken? Isn't it possible that you're mistaken?
He's not…
But grappling is not exactly a new idea either. I wonder why they left it out?
Look at the re created medievil sword fighting. It is not like that don't have the opportunity to grapple to their advantage.
What makes you think it's not there? (Again, I'm using grappling to actually mean "grappling"… not "ground fighting"… but even so, the question stands. Of course, if you're thinking of that joke of an MMA undercard with the armour and weapons that you posted a little while back… I'm not touching that mess…
Not all TMA have form. My Shuai-Chiao (Chinese wrestling) system is a TMA but it has no form. The Yi Chuan system also has no form. The Judo system also has no form.
Judo has lots of "forms".
Itsutsu no Kata - 5 forms.
Koshiki no Kata - 21 forms in two sections.
Kime no Kata - 20 forms in 2 categories, four sections.
Ju no Kata - 15 forms in three sections.
Nage no Kata - 16 forms in five sections (shown by drop bear in the previous post).
Katame no Kata - 4 forms.
Goshin no Kata - 21 forms in five sections.
Go no Sen no Kata - 12 forms in three sections.
Go no Kata - 10 forms.
In addition to the above, there are many more forms found in various sections, such as Nage Ura no Kata, developed by Mifune, Joshi Goshinho (Women's Defence), Renhoko (arresting techniques), and more.
