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

[Marnetmar]

I think the mindset has a lot to do with it. The type of person that trains TMAs is often passive and laid back, training more for fulfillment and basic self defense than an actual brawl, while the MMA/boxing mindset is all-out ground-and-pound. As a result, TMA-ists are generally afraid to train against a resisting opponent that's genuinely trying to brawl with them rather than someone on the street that tries to incapacitate them quickly with one or two things that they specifically train against, and if they do begin to train in a boxing/MMA gym and get their *** kicked, it's much more convenient and much, much, much less time consuming to switch to something that's been tried and proven than to step back and analyze what did and didn't work.

With regards to grappling specifically, TMA people tend to be pretty naive about it, usually with a "well, if he grabs my legs I'll just chop him in the back of the neck" idea when:

1 - With the forward momentum of that particular takedown, your hand is more likely to bounce or miss completely than actually strike his neck

2 - That's not the only way to get taken down.

 

[Hanzou]

First off in the ‘first UFC’ the participants were Selected specifically for their lack of ground skills but one exception, Ken Shamrock. Ken was the only Not Certain due to his high school wrestling and American & Japanese professional wrestling experiences as well as 3 Pancrase events. Ken was the only real possible threat based upon the rules of UFC 1. He probably underestimated Gracie as well as fought after coming off a fight in Japan 4 days prior.

I'm not seeing how the Gracies choosing predominantly strikers to fight against proves anything, since TMAs are primarily striking arts with little to no ground skills. Prior to the first UFC most people believed that going to the ground was a dumb thing to do, and that you could stop a takedown with a fast strike to the head. The Gracies were out to prove a point with the UFC.

That said, let's not forget that the Gracies fought plenty of grapplers in Vale Tudo and Pride.

As to TMA being absent from the curriculum of most MMA practitioners, I feel the number one reason is because those who train and practice for MMA actually practice fighting against another who is also practicing the same within the rules of that event. They actually fight during much of their practicing and most all of their practicing is specific to the event.


Most, (note: I didn’t say all) most TMA schools, instructors, and practitioners Do Not practice for real fighting against an opponent who is punching, kicking, or attempting to put you on the ground with full intent. PERIOD!!!.

Some do and those that do have people who can truly use their skills. Those that don’t do it are only learning to play at fighting. If TMA practitioners wrestled, rolled, practiced, sparred using their skills against someone like they were preparing for a mma event their skill, abilities, and success in mma events would be much higher.

I can largely agree with that.

 

[jezr74]

Just curious, from the original post. Is there a reference of historical data of UFC fighters and their backgrounds? Just wondering where the premise in the first place comes from. And if it's just anecdotal.

 

[drop bear]

Yep. My point though is that we don't really train to spar. There are some WC guys out there who can hold their own in a sparring context, but only because they've trained with that purpose in mind.

In the same way I might have some trouble in a sparring context, I think you would find a chisau context equally challenging and unfamiliar.

On the other hand, I'm confident, despite not having much sparring practice, my training would serve me if I ever needed it in a confrontation. Or, heck, if I put it to its traditional use and entered a 1950's challenge match.

But you could spar. There shouldn't be a reason your system would not hold up.

 

[drop bear]

Well, people don't like fighting bareknuckle on concrete these days -- and for good reason. You'd also be facing a different plethora of styles, though western boxers were common participants.

You can read Wong Shun Leung's comments on Beimo, if you like. He was boxer himself before taking up Wing Chun, and fought in the ring as well as in challenge matches, so he would sometimes compare the two.

Do you want to spar bare knuckle on concrete? How would that give you the advantage?

 

[Hanzou]

Just curious, from the original post. Is there a reference of historical data of UFC fighters and their backgrounds? Just wondering where the premise in the first place comes from. And if it's just anecdotal.

Sherdog or even Wikipedia should give you a background of NHB fighters from a variety of events. TMAs stylists are pretty nonexistent in almost all combat sports.

I found an article that attempts to explain why TMAs are at a disadvantage in NHB bouts. This article lays the blame on training.

1.) Lack of conditioning
2.) Lack of ground work
3.) Lack of sparring
4.) Lack of cross-training

Why traditional Martial Arts don't work in MMA

And gives pretty decent arguments for each.

what do you think?

 

[ST1Doppelganger]

Well not all martial arts were created for the battlefield. I can name several Kung Fu and Karate styles that were not created for the battlefield, but were created for personal protection. It amazes me that they wouldn't have an answer for grapplers. It also seems weird that not being allowed to do certain "dirty attacks" would render their art useless.

When you see Rickson Gracie in Vale Tudo, its truly amazing how much larger his opponents were than he was. These guys were allowed to strike him, gouge his eyes, or grab his balls, yet he still prevailed.

If its a traditional Kung Fu then it most likely has weapon training in it which most likely means they spent time training with weapons instead of trying to develop a ground game.

It really dosent matter if it was for personal protection or the battlefield because the ground is the last place they wanted to be hence why they didn't develop a ground game since weapons trump the ground game.

I feel that allot of the modern TMA schools ideals of how to defend against a grappler are just as bad as most of the Women's Self Defense crash course techniques you see out there. Meaning their ideals of how to defend against a grappler are usually worthless because they have never been mauled by a proficient grappler before and thats why they come up with these ridiculous ideals of how to defend against a grappler.

The early UFC proved that an average grappler could beat the best strikers (no ground game) if that striker got taken to the ground so its pretty much the same for a TMA person that has no ground game if they get taken down. (Rendering them useless)

Ok now about Rickson Gracie what can I say other then he's one of the best Gracie Fighters and is a trained fighter that breathes BJJ. He has that fighting spirit along with skill that most people dont have allowing him to take some eye gouges and groin strikes.

I can speak for myself I've been hit in the groin, eye poked and have had my hair pulled before and will say yes it sucks big time but you still can fight threw it. I'm not big on the mentality of depending on those types of techniques as the main solution but would use them as an aid or set up for an escape, submission or strike.

The main thing is if you want to compete in MMA tournaments then you better have a fighting spirit, train hard, have good striking skills and one hell of a ground game IMHO.

 

[ST1Doppelganger]

I found an article that attempts to explain why TMAs are at a disadvantage in NHB bouts. This article lays the blame on training.

1.) Lack of conditioning
2.) Lack of ground work
3.) Lack of sparring
4.) Lack of cross-training

Why traditional Martial Arts don't work in MMA

And gives pretty decent arguments for each.

what do you think?

That pretty much sums it up along with the fact that most people that want to become a competitive fighter can learn allot quicker from a MMA school since thats what they do.

The other thing is most TMA schools have a low percentage of students and instructors that actually enjoy the pain of hard sparring unlike MMA schools.

 

[K-man]

Sherdog or even Wikipedia should give you a background of NHB fighters from a variety of events. TMAs stylists are pretty nonexistent in almost all combat sports.

I found an article that attempts to explain why TMAs are at a disadvantage in NHB bouts. This article lays the blame on training.

1.) Lack of conditioning
2.) Lack of ground work
3.) Lack of sparring
4.) Lack of cross-training

Why traditional Martial Arts don't work in MMA

And gives pretty decent arguments for each.

what do you think?

Before we start, the article is not about NHB. It refers to MMA.

I think there are numerous false assumptions either stated or inferred. First is as to whether TMAs are effective 'in the real world' which is assuming that they aren't and the second is that TMAs actually want to fight in MMA bouts.

Most people training in martial arts are not dedicated athletes striving for a level where they must win at all cost. If you want to compete then that is the aim of your training. If you want an activity that gives you a cardio workout, helps keep you supple, improves coordination and has the added benefit of giving you some self defence skills then that probably describes your average martial artist. I have no desire to fight in the ring, or anywhere else for that matter. But, I love my martial art training. I have no illusions that I could compete with Muhammad Ali, Bas Rutten, Royce Gracie or any other champion fighters at their peak of form and fitness. Nor could 99.9% of other martial artists out there, MMA fighters included.

But to look at the four points.

1.) Lack of conditioning
If you are training to compete in the ring I don't believe this is true. A top Kyokushin athlete should be as well conditioned as any other fighter preparing for a bout.

2.) Lack of ground work
This has a lot of truth to it. However, once again there is a flaw to the statement. If I was to be fighting a ground fighter or someone with a strong ground game I would prepare accordingly. Fighting this way is a specialist sport. You could with just as much truth say a footballer wouldn't do well in a cage fight. In Australia we have had several footballers who have gone on to be professional fighters but they didn't use their footballing skill for that. So if as a TMA fighter you haven't trained for the ground then of course you will be disadvantaged, so you need to develop at least enough skill to handle what you are likely to encounter in the cage.

3.) Lack of sparring
How stupid is this statement? Who in this world would be stupid enough to go into a cage fight with a trained MMA fighter without having trained those skills? I would state ot the outset, absolutely none. Some TMAs have sparring in the conventional sense and some don't. If you are going to fight in a cage with an MMA fighter you have to train to compete with cage rules. So to refer back to Kyokushin. One of their guys would not be training so many head shots because that is not part of their competition rules, but that is easy to train and I don't think anyone would suggest a trained Kyokushin fighter would be lacking sparring.

4.) Lack of cross-training
How do you define this. It is a generic statement that looks profound but in reality means nothing. Many of us cross train at any opportunity. Once again going back to our Kyokushin guy. Traditionally he is going to be a kicking punching guy but in his training he also has a number of other effective techniques that are against MMA rules. So again, if he is going to compete against MMA fighters on their terms he has to adjust his skill set. Making sure he can compete on the ground is just one of those things. Whether he needs to cross train in, for example, BJJ is his choice.

I feel the article is written from the perspective of an MMA practitioner.
:asian:

 

[Flying Crane]

This whole discussion is based on the premise that everyone is an octagon champion wanna-be. We aren't. I personally don't care one way or the other about MMA competitions. I don't watch them, I don't know the dominant personalities in them, I don't want to be in them nor associated with them. But that's just me.

On the heels of this, I can also say that I train for my own reasons. Whatever anyone else may think of my system, method, or training integrity, is something about which again, I don't care.

So that's one perspective on this whole debate.

now regarding this:

I have no illusions that I could compete with Muhammad Ali, Bas Rutten, Royce Gracie or any other champion fighters at their peak of form and fitness. Nor could 99.9% of other martial artists out there, MMA fighters included.

:asian:

I'll say that I could. The issue was raised a few posts back: weapons. I train a traditional Chinese/Tibetan method, and that training included weapons. If I were to utilize "my style", or "my training methods", well that includes weapons. So I've got a choice of sword, saber, spear, staff, double butterfly swords...those are weapons for which I have received solid instruction and training. If I were to face...Royce Gracie for example, and he utilized his "style" (i.e. BJJ) against me in an attempt to grapple my sorry ***, and I was allowed to utilize my traditional Chinese/Tibetan method against him, well I can choose to use the weapons aspect of my traditional training. And I am more than confident that I could hack, slash, chop, puncture, cut, slice, and bludgeon him to death quite readily.

This is a silly discussion, and I hope my insight here has helped to point that out to everyone. We can all make whatever comparison we want to, and find a way to put ourselves on top. Is there a point to it all? Do the MMA proponents here want to convince all the TMA people to admit their foolish errors, give up their training, and head on down to the nearest MMA gym? Ain't gonna happen.

 

[Hanzou]

This whole discussion is based on the premise that everyone is an octagon champion wanna-be. We aren't. I personally don't care one way or the other about MMA competitions. I don't watch them, I don't know the dominant personalities in them, I don't want to be in them nor associated with them. But that's just me.

Actually no. This whole discussion is based on the premise of all unarmed martial arts being equal, and if that is the case, then someone who practices a 400 year old Asian martial art should be able to use that art in ringed competition if they so desire. However, that isn't the case. Only a set group of 4-5 martial arts are used for these competitions. So what sets that group of 4-5 martial arts apart from the other systems of unarmed combat?

On the heels of this, I can also say that I train for my own reasons. Whatever anyone else may think of my system, method, or training integrity, is something about which again, I don't care.

Indeed, but we're not talking about you. We're talking about guys who may want to compete in MMA/NHB tournaments using traditional arts, but are slowly forced to learn the usual set of 4-5 styles that will make them competitive.

 

[jezr74]

Sherdog or even Wikipedia should give you a background of NHB fighters from a variety of events. TMAs stylists are pretty nonexistent in almost all combat sports.

I found an article that attempts to explain why TMAs are at a disadvantage in NHB bouts. This article lays the blame on training.

1.) Lack of conditioning
2.) Lack of ground work
3.) Lack of sparring
4.) Lack of cross-training

Why traditional Martial Arts don't work in MMA

And gives pretty decent arguments for each.

what do you think?

Sorry, that was a terrible article to read on this subject. Was just full of personal conjecture with obvious bias and lack of knowledge of other arts beyond what he wanted to use as "evidence".

I did a quick search and could find plenty of examples of UFC contenders with "TMA" backgrounds. 973,000 hits on articles etc.

I couldn't find a list of backgrounds though. that would be interesting, you could maybe cross-reference backgrounds to submissions, KO's etc... maybe draw some correlation data at best.

Strange, I would have actually thought this information was readily available since it sparks so much interest.

As far as the 1-4 list goes, I practice Hapkido and has all those elements. A number of guys at work practice MMA, they seem to love it, but they don't think it gives too much of an edge between any style. And comes down to the instructor and individual. Which I tend to agree and is applicable to any martial art.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I find it interesting listening (reading) to the talk. I'm incline to ask them now what drew them to MMA over other martial arts.

 

[Hanzou]

Sorry, that was a terrible article to read on this subject. Was just full of personal conjecture with obvious bias and lack of knowledge of other arts beyond what he wanted to use as "evidence".

I did a quick search and could find plenty of examples of UFC contenders with "TMA" backgrounds. 973,000 hits on articles etc.

Many current UFC fighters began in TMAs, but then converted to the 4-5 MMA styles. For example, Loyoto Machida has a background in Shotokan Karate, but also a background in Bjj and several other styles.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

But you could spar. There shouldn't be a reason your system would not hold up.

Agree with you on this.

If you can spar, why don't you? The sparring can be a lot of fun. Even if you may not train the grappling art, to wrestling or to play ground game is fun. If you take that fun away, MA training can be boring. Why should you allow your style to take that fun away from you?

 

[jezr74]

Many current UFC fighters began in TMAs, but then converted to the 4-5 MMA styles. For example, Loyoto Machida has a background in Shotokan Karate, but also a background in Bjj and several other styles.

Yeah, maybe I don't understand the premise of this thread.

Sounds like there is clearly TMA being used in fights. Just maybe not classically taught in MMA studios?

 

[ST1Doppelganger]

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?

And back to the original questions that have been answered already.

The easy answer is GRAPPLING ARTS!

The follow up question that was asked after it was why do TMA lack grappling.

With my response of most TMA have weapons training which made them not concentrate on grappling arts or grappling defense heavily.



What it comes down to is if you want to compete in MMA matches go to a MMA school. This is what one of my friends did and he is owning allot of his amateur matches with his CLF & Tai Chi background that he mixed with the MMA gym instruction.

If your looking for a self defense system that you can do in your spare time and not worried about going to work with black eyes and bruises from MMA matches then stick with a TMA.

In my opinion TMA are for the people that want to enjoy learning an martial art and maybe even continue it in to their senior years as a life style. (This is what I plan on doing)

MMA gyms are for people that want to learn an art that can quickly prepare them to compete in MMA matches.

Is one better then the other style?

Not really they are just different paths that take you to same goal of being a martial artist.

 

[K-man]

Actually no. This whole discussion is based on the premise of all unarmed martial arts being equal, and if that is the case, then someone who practices a 400 year old Asian martial art should be able to use that art in ringed competition if they so desire. However, that isn't the case. Only a set group of 4-5 martial arts are used for these competitions. So what sets that group of 4-5 martial arts apart from the other systems of unarmed combat?

Indeed, but we're not talking about you. We're talking about guys who may want to compete in MMA/NHB tournaments using traditional arts, but are slowly forced to learn the usual set of 4-5 styles that will make them competitive.

What sets them apart is that they are all arts that have been modified for competition.

As for the bit about learning the sets that makes them competitive. I would have thought that that was because when you do that you are fulfilling the definition of mixed martial arts. MMA is purely a combination of different arts. If I was a baseballer and want to compete in a golfing tournament I have to learn to play golf. They are both games that hit a ball with a stick. I might have a great swing with a baseball bat but that isn't going to win me a golfing crown, that is assuming I might want to play golf.

No different if you want to compete in any martial art tournament. If you learn one of the older traditional martial arts of course you will have to modify it for competition.

As Flying Crane said, who cares?

 

[Hanzou]

And back to the original questions that have been answered already.

The easy answer is GRAPPLING ARTS!

Okay, but to use your example, there IS grappling in many Karate and Kung Fu styles. Why would a Choy Li Fut or Prayin Mantis practitioner for example need to go learn Bjj or Wrestling when their art has grappling and joint locks within the system already?

The follow up question that was asked after it was why do TMA lack grappling.

With my response of most TMA have weapons training which made them not concentrate on grappling arts or grappling defense heavily.

Okay, but then comes the other question; Why are we not seeing anyone enter the UFC or Bellator, and break out in Kung Fu or Karate hand techniques, footwork, or stances?

If your looking for a self defense system that you can do in your spare time and not worried about going to work with black eyes and bruises from MMA matches then stick with a TMA.

In my opinion TMA are for the people that want to enjoy learning an martial art and maybe even continue it in to their senior years as a life style. (This is what I plan on doing)

MMA gyms are for people that want to learn an art that can quickly prepare them to compete in MMA matches.

Is one better then the other style?

Not really they are just different paths that take you to same goal of being a martial artist.

Well to be fair, Bjj has all of those qualities you mentioned above, yet is still a major style in MMA competition. So even that explanation doesn't really work.

 

[Cirdan]

Hanzou, as you are the thread starter I`d like to ask what you think is the answer?

 

[Chris Parker]

So… things have gotten a bit further… this may not be short…

But a mmaer who does not train for boxing can still box.

Yeah… you're still thinking that all martial arts are the same, have the same ideals, the same emphasis, the same purpose, the same aims, and more… and you're wrong. This example is, to put it simply, rather pointless. Boxing, or at least Western Hands, is a large component of MMA skill sets… so of course they can box… not to the level of a pro-boxer themselves, of course, but they're hardly going out of their major comfort zone. Find me a guy trained only in MMA who can get through an Iaido competition and you'll have an argument.

So can a kick boxer, so can plenty of striking styles. Tma or otherwise. So even though they may not specifically train for a rule set does not equal an inability to handle competition.

You're still missing the point. You're picking sport approaches who incorporate Western Hands (boxing), and putting them in a situation which they are familiar with (through movies, TV, popular media, and the fact that it's something that has surrounded them for decades)… which completely invalidates it as an example.

There is definatley an overlap there where one set of skills apply to more than one situation.

In the examples you gave, sure… but that's hardly exhaustive or definitive.

Please explain how a fighting art isn't designed for fighting.

Look, you're still missing the reality of different contexts here… as I've said, fighting ain't fighting… the scope and range of what can be meant is gigantic… and MMA is only a tiny look at a small aspect of what fighting can refer to… it's hardly the only form, or even the most realistic form… beyond that, who on earth said that all arts are designed for "fighting" in the first place? You are trying to make every system fit your small and unrealistic understanding of what martial arts are… it's a much bigger world outside your window, you know…

That's what you're doing in a ringed competiton; Fighting.

No, actually, you're competing. Bit different.

Certainly not every martial art is suited to compete in a NHB style battle, however if you're practicing any form of unarmed combat, there's no reason your style shouldn't be fully capable of fighting in an arena.

And again, who says that traditional martial arts are unarmed…? As far as there being no reason that a system shouldn't be fully capable, yes, there are many, many reasons… ranging from mechanical, to cultural, to tactical, to strategic preferences, to, well, everything to do with the art in question.

What also makes this argument dubious is the fact that several traditional MA styles revolve around the supposed fighting prowess of their founders in similar types of events.

Really? Which ones? I think you'll find that the "similar types of events" aren't really that similar…

Because they don't. Imagine if a TMA practioner dominated an MMA tournament. That praciticioner would be set for life. I find it hard to believe that every TMA pracitioner in the entire world has no desire for fortune or fame, or to enhance the health of their style of choice if they had the ability to do so.

Set for life? Really? Top level MMA/UFC athletes have enough money and other issues, so I don't really see that as being a major drawcard (or, bluntly, in any way realistic or accurate)… "enhance the health of their style"…? How? By doing something it's not designed for, or interested in, just because people who don't know any better think it proves something it really doesn't? Can't see that as being any major draw either…

Look, the simple fact is that if you want to train and compete in MMA, you train in MMA… if you choose to train in something other than MMA, odds are that you're not interested in competing in MMA… so, if the practitioners aren't interested, what makes you think that they should be looking to do it anyway? All it means when TMA practitioners don't seek out MMA competition is that they don't seek it out… it doesn't mean that they can't, it means that they don't. I don't ride a bike these days… it doesn't mean I can't, it means I don't… I drive a car instead.

Anyone remember this dubious video showing two kung fu masters fighting in a ring?

Too much form work?

What in that clip has you thinking that there is "too much form work"? I see the demonstrations done at the beginning, but all that says is that part of the exhibition is a demonstration of their forms… I'd be interested to know a lot more before I made any assumptions on exactly what that clip shows.

Cross training is essential, in my mind, not only to understand where others are coming from, but to understand your own art.

I wouldn't say essential, but it can certainly be highly positive in that sense, yeah.

First one, a bit hard unless you are absolutely sure of what's happening, second and third ones are ok as long as you react soon enough with the third one being perhaps the best option if you have to go to the ground.

TMA? Sure. Krav is a TMA in the context of this thread, isn't it?

Leaving off the critique… are we then just defining TMA as "non-sporting"? I don't know that I'd agree with that classification… there are sporting "traditional" systems… and non-sporting non-traditional ones (which is how I'd define Krav Maga, really)…

I think the mindset has a lot to do with it. The type of person that trains TMAs is often passive and laid back, training more for fulfillment and basic self defense than an actual brawl, while the MMA/boxing mindset is all-out ground-and-pound. As a result, TMA-ists are generally afraid to train against a resisting opponent that's genuinely trying to brawl with them rather than someone on the street that tries to incapacitate them quickly with one or two things that they specifically train against, and if they do begin to train in a boxing/MMA gym and get their *** kicked, it's much more convenient and much, much, much less time consuming to switch to something that's been tried and proven than to step back and analyze what did and didn't work.

With regards to grappling specifically, TMA people tend to be pretty naive about it, usually with a "well, if he grabs my legs I'll just chop him in the back of the neck" idea when:

1 - With the forward momentum of that particular takedown, your hand is more likely to bounce or miss completely than actually strike his neck

2 - That's not the only way to get taken down.

There's a lot of assumption here as well… and a lot of generalising (not really accurately, either) as to what "TMA's" claim, or do… the only part of this that I'd agree with is that different people train each… people who are interested in MMA tend to train MMA (or the subset of systems that are commonly thought to be in the make-up of what MMA consists of), people who aren't interested in it don't. I would really be very hesitant to say that there's any "fear" involved… on a number of levels.

I'm not seeing how the Gracies choosing predominantly strikers to fight against proves anything, since TMAs are primarily striking arts with little to no ground skills.

Really? They wanted to showcase their art, they helped set the whole thing up, they helped design the surface (too slow and soft for the strikers to really get the purchase, speed, and power they were used to), and picked the guys they were going up against… but you can't see how that proves anything? And TMAs are "primarily striking arts"? Not any of my TMAs, mate…

Prior to the first UFC most people believed that going to the ground was a dumb thing to do, and that you could stop a takedown with a fast strike to the head. The Gracies were out to prove a point with the UFC.

Going to the ground is a dumb thing to do… in the majority of contexts. In an environment such as the UFC/MMA competitions, it's not. Once again, this is not the definitive form of "fighting" you seem to think it is…

That said, let's not forget that the Gracies fought plenty of grapplers in Vale Tudo and Pride.

Yeah, and that helped them to become even stronger specialists… they are incredibly good ground fighters (ground fighting is not grappling… really, it's not), and that was honed through, among other things, challenge matches and competitions such as Vale Tudo… which again makes it hardly surprising that, when they designed their own competition as basically a publicity stunt (there was only meant to be the one, it was set up so that the Gracies would have the advantage, and named so that they could refer to their system as "The Ultimate Fighting Art") they would be successful.

But you could spar. There shouldn't be a reason your system would not hold up.

There are lots of reasons that a system might not spar, though. In my case, it's because it's highly unrealistic… among other reasons…

Sherdog or even Wikipedia should give you a background of NHB fighters from a variety of events. TMAs stylists are pretty nonexistent in almost all combat sports.

I found an article that attempts to explain why TMAs are at a disadvantage in NHB bouts. This article lays the blame on training.

1.) Lack of conditioning
2.) Lack of ground work
3.) Lack of sparring
4.) Lack of cross-training

Why traditional Martial Arts don't work in MMA

And gives pretty decent arguments for each.

what do you think?

Ha! That was funny!

Oh, wait… were you serious?

That pretty much sums it up along with the fact that most people that want to become a competitive fighter can learn allot quicker from a MMA school since thats what they do.

The other thing is most TMA schools have a low percentage of students and instructors that actually enjoy the pain of hard sparring unlike MMA schools.

Hmm… do you think that "hard sparring" is pain…? No…

This whole discussion is based on the premise that everyone is an octagon champion wanna-be. We aren't. I personally don't care one way or the other about MMA competitions. I don't watch them, I don't know the dominant personalities in them, I don't want to be in them nor associated with them. But that's just me.

Abso-damn-lutely!

On the heels of this, I can also say that I train for my own reasons. Whatever anyone else may think of my system, method, or training integrity, is something about which again, I don't care.

So that's one perspective on this whole debate.

Make that two. Seconded.

I'll say that I could. The issue was raised a few posts back: weapons. I train a traditional Chinese/Tibetan method, and that training included weapons. If I were to utilize "my style", or "my training methods", well that includes weapons. So I've got a choice of sword, saber, spear, staff, double butterfly swords...those are weapons for which I have received solid instruction and training. If I were to face...Royce Gracie for example, and he utilized his "style" (i.e. BJJ) against me in an attempt to grapple my sorry ***, and I was allowed to utilize my traditional Chinese/Tibetan method against him, well I can choose to use the weapons aspect of my traditional training. And I am more than confident that I could hack, slash, chop, puncture, cut, slice, and bludgeon him to death quite readily.

I've been asked how I'd go in MMA on occasion… I usually answer "Pretty good, I think… I mean I have a sword… or a naginata… not sure how good their weapon defence is… evasion's not going to be easy trapped in a cage for them…"

This is a silly discussion, and I hope my insight here has helped to point that out to everyone. We can all make whatever comparison we want to, and find a way to put ourselves on top. Is there a point to it all? Do the MMA proponents here want to convince all the TMA people to admit their foolish errors, give up their training, and head on down to the nearest MMA gym? Ain't gonna happen.

Damn straight.

Actually no. This whole discussion is based on the premise of all unarmed martial arts being equal, and if that is the case, then someone who practices a 400 year old Asian martial art should be able to use that art in ringed competition if they so desire. However, that isn't the case. Only a set group of 4-5 martial arts are used for these competitions. So what sets that group of 4-5 martial arts apart from the other systems of unarmed combat?

If that's what you based the discussion on, then it's based on a lot of ignorance… and a lack of ability to see outside your own limited impressions, honestly.

Indeed, but we're not talking about you. We're talking about guys who may want to compete in MMA/NHB tournaments using traditional arts, but are slowly forced to learn the usual set of 4-5 styles that will make them competitive.

If they want to compete in MMA, they should train in MMA. To think anything different is fantasy.

And back to the original questions that have been answered already.

The easy answer is GRAPPLING ARTS!

Having my tendency to want to use words properly, I'm assuming you mean the false connotation of "grappling = ground work"… as many very traditional systems are very grappling heavy… but don't have much in the way of ground fighting… they're really not the same thing…

And, really, when it comes down to it, ground work is a dominant successful tactic in this form of competition… that's it. If it's a system not designed for this form of competition, it's hardly any wonder that it's not designed the same.

The follow up question that was asked after it was why do TMA lack grappling.

With my response of most TMA have weapons training which made them not concentrate on grappling arts or grappling defense heavily.

Possible, depending on the art itself… but there are a large range of other factors.

What it comes down to is if you want to compete in MMA matches go to a MMA school. This is what one of my friends did and he is owning allot of his amateur matches with his CLF & Tai Chi background that he mixed with the MMA gym instruction.

Yep.

If your looking for a self defense system that you can do in your spare time and not worried about going to work with black eyes and bruises from MMA matches then stick with a TMA.

You can still quite easily get such injuries without MMA competition, of course… I've had a black eye from training, as well as a range of other similar-scale injuries… and have seen far worse (broken bones etc, for example)… and that's all TMA systems…

In my opinion TMA are for the people that want to enjoy learning an martial art and maybe even continue it in to their senior years as a life style. (This is what I plan on doing)

Sometimes… it really depends on the person, and the art.

MMA gyms are for people that want to learn an art that can quickly prepare them to compete in MMA matches.

Sure.

Is one better then the other style?

Not really they are just different paths that take you to same goal of being a martial artist.

And agreed… other than with the ideas that there is even such commonality to the goals.