Why do TMAs have more difficulty in the ring/octagon?

[Steve]

And apart from "MMA is great,the rest is s#|t", how is this not bagging other styles and what has it to do with the OP? Your comments keep feeding this nonsense even though I believe you know it is wrong.

Unless it's clearly otherwise, I presume that the technique is solid. How is that bagging on a style?

I can disagree with you without it being bashing. Hanzou can ride the line sometimes, but my opinion is that, in general, he just has an opinion that is different from your own. That isn't inherently bashing. It's just simply disagreement. But once again, if you think it is bashing from me or anyone else, use the rtm function. That's what it is for.

For what it's worth, I haven't seen Mma is great and everything else is crap. I see some good points on both sides, and a few people on both sides who occasionally get a little punchy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[K-man]

This is the traditional martial arts fallacy at its root. It's, "My sifu or sensei can do x, and he taught me. so now I can do x." That's just not true. It's dangerously deluded, considering the subject matter is self defense. Truthfully, more often than not, it's really, "my insttuctor's instructor's instructor could do these things, and he taught that guy who taught this guy, and they told me that now I can do that thing, but I've never actually had to do it... But it's cool to be an instructor and I hope someday I can open my own school."

Unless my grasp of English is so tenuous to be useless you have just stated that TMAs have a basic flaw from the base level. You have stated that anyone who has not actually been taught a technique by someone who has used a technique is dangerously deluded. That would be the majority of TMAs world wide. And yes, you are not bashing a style. You are bashing all TMAs.

i would have thought that would put you right up there with Hanzou 'riding the line'.

 

[Steve]

Unless my grasp of English is so tenuous to be useless you have just stated that TMAs have a basic flaw from the base level. You have stated that anyone who has not actually been taught a technique by someone who has used a technique is dangerously deluded. That would be the majority of TMAs world wide. And yes, you are not bashing a style. You are bashing all TMAs.

i would have thought that would put you right up there with Hanzou 'riding the line'.

Thinking that you can do something because your teacher can do it is deluded. And if you then go on to teach others, they are even further removed from functional expertise. I think it's pretty clear, and I think not bashing a style. But, if you are saying that the majority of tma in the world choose to teach this way, it's really you who is bashing them. Not me.

It's not unique to tma. It is said that the difference between a purple belt and a black belt in bjj is that a black belt has done the same techniques thousands of times more than a purple belt. They know the same stuff. The difference is experience. Can I defend myself from a group of ninja Ina dark alley? Doubtful. But I can likely stay in my feet in a fight, and I can likely get Back to my feet if taken down. Because I personally have done that hundreds, if not thousands of times.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[K-man]

Thinking that you can do something because your teacher can do it is deluded. And if you then go on to teach others, they are even further removed from functional expertise. I think it's pretty clear, and I think not bashing a style. But, if you are saying that the majority of tma in the world choose to teach this way, it's really you who is bashing them. Not me.

Thinking you can do something because your teacher can do it is deluded. But that is not what you posted. If you have been properly taught a technique, and the stress is on properly, there is a high probability it will work if and when the need arises. Thinking that if I strike you full force with my forearm to the base of your skull you will not be seriously injured is also deluded.

Martial arts are taught in many different ways by many different teachers. How they choose to teach is up to them. Some of them post here on MT because they feel they can ask questions and get sensible answers without them or their systems being put down. I might disagree with some of the methodology but unless I am specifically asked to comment then I will keep that opinion to myself rather than needlessly upsetting countless people who value their training for what it means to them. Every so often on MT we get one trick ponies who know better than all others. Sometimes they change their style and become valued members. Sometimes they get banned and sometimes they just move on.

This is thread is a classic case of that. Everyone who has put a contrary opinion has been attacked and almost every style had in one way or other been put down. The irony of this is that I might agree in principle with some of the criticisms but the way they are voiced forces me to come down on the side of the side being attacked. You keep saying if I think it is going too far hit the RTM button. I might just do that!

 

[Steve]

Well thank you then for giving me an opportunity to be more clear and not presuming the worst.

If you are being taught something by someone who has no practical experience, neither of you really knows anything about probability of efficacy.

Edit: I wonder why you insist on making things worse instead of using the RTM function as its intended. Calling someone out publicly and accusing him (or me for that matter ) of style bashing or otherwise violating the tos doesn't help anything. and your needling of Hanzou even when you admit to agreeing with him makes things worse, not better. I don't know what you think I'm suggesting. The RTM is there so that you can avoid adding to the issue. That's what it's for. Use it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Hanzou]

So saying that someone who has never KO'd someone with a technique has almost no chance of knocking out someone in a fight with said technique equates to style bashing?

Hilarious.

 

[K-man]

Well thank you then for giving me an opportunity to be more clear and not presuming the worst.

If you are being taught something by someone who has no practical experience, neither of you really knows anything about probability of efficacy.

Edit: I wonder why you insist on making things worse instead of using the RTM function as its intended. Calling someone out publicly and accusing him (or me for that matter ) of style bashing or otherwise violating the tos doesn't help anything. and your needling of Hanzou even when you admit to agreeing with him makes things worse, not better. I don't know what you think I'm suggesting. The RTM is there so that you can avoid adding to the issue. That's what it's for. Use it.

For whatever reason the mods have chosen to allow this thread to continue. I think it's an absolute disgrace and offensive to most people posting on MT. I didn't say I agree with all Hanzou is claiming. I disagree with probably 90 percent of it. Whenever he makes a reasonable point it is invariable that he will add a caustic comment that counters it's validity. I will continue to challenge what I perceive to be attacks on other styles and other martial artists. If I wanted to read that drivel I could just shift over to Bullshido where this type of chest thumping is the norm. If you agree with all Hanzou is saying, fine go for it. If not then perhaps you could help put an end to it. After all, it was you that said Hanzou is riding the line.

 

[Steve]

For whatever reason the mods have chosen to allow this thread to continue. I think it's an absolute disgrace and offensive to most people posting on MT. I didn't say I agree with all Hanzou is claiming. I disagree with probably 90 percent of it. Whenever he makes a reasonable point it is invariable that he will add a caustic comment that counters it's validity. I will continue to challenge what I perceive to be attacks on other styles and other martial artists. If I wanted to read that drivel I could just shift over to Bullshido where this type of chest thumping is the norm. If you agree with all Hanzou is saying, fine go for it. If not then perhaps you could help put an end to it. After all, it was you that said Hanzou is riding the line.

I don't think there's anyone here I agree with completely, either, and wasn't trying to suggest otherwise.

I would once again urge you to use the rtm function if you think someone is violating the rules. That's what it's for. Riding the line isn't crossing it. I think you're riding the line, too.

 

[Steve]

So saying that someone who has never KO'd someone with a technique has almost no chance of knocking out someone in a fight with said technique equates to style bashing?

Hilarious.

To be clear, I think if you're being taught by a bona fide expert with a lot of functional experience, and the training is fundamentally sound, you're probably in good shape.

A good teacher will facilitate the transition to application. The issue is when that student never makes the transition to application, but decides to teach others anyway. And that person decide to teach others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RTKDCMB]

It actually isn't my opinion, its a fact. Its one of the reasons Jigaro Kano removed striking from randori, and placed it in kata in Judo.

It is a fact that it is a low percentage strike for YOU. Judo is not primarily a striking art.

You simply cannot train strikes at full speed and power without significant protection.

With pad work and non-contact sparring you really can.

You almost never see neck striking in general karate sparring. So you guys aren't even using it in sparring practice. How do you really expect to use that ability in a fight, much less be able to knock someone out with it?

In case you haven't noticed, we are not Karate.

Again, I said that you being able to knock someone out with that strike would constitute a lucky shot because you've never actually KO'd someone with a neck strike.

No that is simply a consequence of skill, knowledge, technique and power developed through proper training.

Which means little if you've never actually applied it.

No it means that it is a technique that is well developed from the beginning which greatly increases it's effectiveness as a strike.

EDIT: Quick question; Are you guys part of the same organization that is "no contact"?

Yes and here is my thread on the subject:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/17...isconceptions-about-non-contact-sparring.html

 

[drop bear]

This is the traditional martial arts fallacy at its root. It's, "My sifu or sensei can do x, and he taught me. so now I can do x." That's just not true. It's dangerously deluded, considering the subject matter is self defense. Truthfully, more often than not, it's really, "my insttuctor's instructor's instructor could do these things, and he taught that guy who taught this guy, and they told me that now I can do that thing, but I've never actually had to do it... But it's cool to be an instructor and I hope someday I can open my own school."

The technique may be perfectly sound, bit that doesn't mean you can do it. Maybe you can, but you don't know until you actually do it. And even if you can, that doesn't mean you're competent to teach someone else.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

And against who?

A lot of the stuff I do is a bit more effort but harder to shut down. Like that one armed guard pass. It is popular because it is easy. Now the question is do you need to have the complexities if you are not training for competition. Rear naked choke is used because it is higher percentage than a standing sleeper.

But if the guy is a Goober it may not be necessary to go to the extra effort.

 

[drop bear]

I agree. But I also think that the further away from someone who has actually walked the talk, the lower your chances of learning something practical. Just because my instructor can do something doesn't mean I can. And if I don't know for sure that I can do it, I'm damn sure not competent to teach others.

We've got experts here on this forum arguing vehemently that they are competent to teach others when they can't even know for sure that they can do it themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anecdotally people who fight full contact get a huge boost in their ability immediately after. Because fighting is faster and more intense. Suddenly training becomes a bit slow.

 

[drop bear]

Gigantic bomb shots are very telegraphic, relatively uncontrolled, inaccurate, imprecise, inefficient and unfocussed. Knife hand strikes, when properly trained, are none of those things that is the reason to throw something else.

No they are not. I murder the pads with them. And make high scores on the punch machine at the pub.

 

[drop bear]

Or the bouncer that is a student takes it back to the dojo and works on it with others and adjusts then back to his night job to use when needed.

Not sure I understand, you don't think people in industries that require physical, often violent interaction with people don't try and improve on what they do?





Nope, I think the data can give people a direction on probability\speculation. It's even the core basis of this topic put forward. It's being speculated that TMA's have more difficulty in the octogon, based on no actual evidence. Using speculation and no real data, aside from data mining and some really statistically insignificant youtube clips.

I think people use experience of what works for them, unless a real study was made to determine this, anything else will be prone to confirmation bias and circular arguments, since it's all really speculative.

Bouncers really don't spend that much time on refining their techniques. We have a dedicated human weapon class once a year. And it is pretty crap. Taught by a guy who has done a two week course. I would not exactly call that dedicated training.

defensive tactics baton handcuffs instructor course australia nationally recognised

And they are trying to sell it as a better alternative than dedicated training.

As far as tma. You would look at the percentages of success in mma. So it is not that much speculation. And to be honest you are looking at tma elements rather than tma itself.

So let's combine these ideas and suggest standing arm locks don't submit many people in a mma setting.

 

[Hanzou]

It is a fact that it is a low percentage strike for YOU. Judo is not primarily a striking art.

Its low percentage in general. Especially if you personally have never KO'd anyone with it before.

Also there's a good reason why Judo isn't a striking art.

With pad work and non-contact sparring you really can.

Yes, and develop deficiency in technique and ability because of it. Hitting a pad isn't the same as hitting flesh and bone. Non-contact sparring isn't the same as getting blasted in the face by a kick, or slicing your hand open on someone's teeth.

In case you haven't noticed, we are not Karate.

Your style comes from Karate.

No that is simply a consequence of skill, knowledge, technique and power developed through proper training.

Skill, knowledge, technique, and power can't developed if you're not actually doing the technique.

No it means that it is a technique that is well developed from the beginning which greatly increases it's effectiveness as a strike.

How can a technique be well developed when you've never applied it towards its intended purpose? It's like me armbarring a mannequin and believing that I can actually armbar a living resisting person with no problems. The only way you can truly develop a technique is by actually doing the technique on a resisting opponent trying to do the same to you. Why? Because you need to develop your own technique, your own timing, your own modifications, and your own style.

Yes and here is my thread on the subject:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/17...isconceptions-about-non-contact-sparring.html

Oh boy.....

 

[Buka]

I should probably just shut up. But I find that hard to do in light of that article. I'm searching my memory banks, but that might be the worst article concerning martial arts I've ever read.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I think one reason that these sorts of discussions generate so much argument is because of the natural human tendency to dislike uncertainty. As martial artists, we devote ridiculous amounts of time and energy to our training. (Probably over 7000 hours of my life so far in my case.) We'd like to feel that all this work should have some sort of guaranteed payoff in ensuring that we can defend ourselves.

The problem is that there are no guarantees. The world of violence is huge and varied. What works in one situation might not be useful in another. No one is expert in all of it. Given the constraints of legality, morality, and practicality - no one can be expert in all of it. This tends to be an uncomfortable truth for those of us who have devoted so much of our lives to training in the martial arts.

I'm going to pick on Mook for a minute, even though (based on footage he has posted) I believe that he is a skilled martial artist who could probably handle himself well in many fight situations.

Mook chooses to believe that Wing Chun practitioners hit faster and harder than everyone else - to the point where they can't safely fight full contact without the serious risk of killing or crippling their opponents. He believes this even though plenty of Wing Chunners over the years have taken part in challenge matches, street fights, and even MMA matches without ever killing or crippling anyone. To an outsider, his certainty on this matter resembles a matter of religious faith - needing no proof and immune to disproof. I suspect this is because he (like all of us) doesn't like the uncertainty that comes with not knowing for sure.

I'm going to pick on Hanzou for a minute, even though he is a fellow BJJer and I agree with many of his ideas concerning effective training practices.

Hanzou chooses to believe that MMA is the ultimate test of what works or doesn't work in any violent encounter, even though many real-world violent situations have very different circumstances from what happens in the cage and those differences can greatly affect the techniques, strategies, and tactics which will be effective. I suspect this is because MMA provides something knowable. You can watch a bunch of MMA fights and end up with a pretty confident assessment of what will or won't work without all that pesky uncertainty.

My personal approach is to gather as much knowledge as possible from every source. I watch MMA, kickboxing, and grappling matches. I watch the Dog Brothers do full-contact matches with weapons. I watch videos of street fights and street assaults. I read accounts of different sorts of violent encounters and crimes. I listen to police officers, prison guards, and bouncers talk about their experiences. I spar under all sorts of different rulesets. I do scenario training with various rules and scenarios. I try to analyze how what works changes and what stays the same under different rules and circumstances and extrapolate to figure out what might work under different circumstances. I note what sorts of situations are well-documented with lots of examples and which are not. I accept that my understanding of the less-documented situations is always going to be uncertain and provisional. I accept that everything I think I know is subject to disproof at a later time. It's not as reassuring as thinking that I have full understanding of what works and what doesn't, but it's more reality-based.

(Note - the link at the start of this comment leads to a blog post I wrote a while back about uncertainty.)

 

[RTKDCMB]

Its low percentage in general. Especially if you personally have never KO'd anyone with it before.

You do realize that other styles have different skill sets to what you do and what is high percentage for one art is low percentage in another right?

Also there's a good reason why Judo isn't a striking art.

Probably because they chose to be a grappling art.

Yes, and develop deficiency in technique and ability because of it.

Still just your ill informed opinion based on lack of knowledge and insight. Not supported by reality.

Hitting a pad isn't the same as hitting flesh and bone. Non-contact sparring isn't the same as getting blasted in the face by a kick, or slicing your hand open on someone's teeth.

Obviously, and sporting competitions are not the same as a self defense situation. In non-contact sparring I can practice some things you can't do any other way.

Your style comes from Karate.

Yet strangely not Karate.

Skill, knowledge, technique, and power can't developed if you're not actually doing the technique.

How can a technique be well developed when you've never applied it towards its intended purpose?

We are actually doing the technique but differently than you do it. How do you apply kicks to the groin, neck strikes, elbows to the spine and back of the head if you can't throw them? I can.

It's like me armbarring a mannequin and believing that I can actually armbar a living resisting person with no problems.

No it is not, because the mannequin is not moving, in sparring the person you are sparring is also sparring you.

The only way you can truly develop a technique is by actually doing the technique on a resisting opponent trying to do the same to you. Why? Because you need to develop your own technique, your own timing, your own modifications, and your own style.

And none of that can not be done with non-contact sparring. My opponent is trying to get through my defences and prevent me from doing the same..

 

[RTKDCMB]

I should probably just shut up.

Why start now.

I'm searching my memory banks, but that might be the worst article concerning martial arts I've ever read.

Well I didn't write it.

 

[RTKDCMB]

No they are not. I murder the pads with them. And make high scores on the punch machine at the pub.

Yeah, ok.