I don't believe I've encountered any MMA fighter claiming that Muay Thai is a particularly "modern" system. Who have you seen making that claim?
Ah ... you said MMA fighters, I think you meant uneducated MMA fanboys.
The clue to the answer is in your own post. People say something is “ineffective”. What you have to say is that a) is ineffective in scenario 1. The problem is that people fail to understand this, and assume if something fails under 1) scenario it fails under all scenarios.
agree, its,much the same with bjj take down, do that to some one on the street, and you might find they kick you in the head very hard, and then continue kicking you, you don't get up to have another goThe clue to the answer is in your own post. People say something is “ineffective”. What you have to say is that a) is ineffective in scenario 1. The problem is that people fail to understand this, and assume if something fails under 1) scenario it fails under all scenarios.
e.g.
Craig does Krav Maga, He knows that kicking men in the bollocks works. He knows because he has done it in training and in “the street”. Craig decides to become an MMA fighter. Three years later Craig has record on no wins, no losses, and 17 disqualifications. Craig cannot understand why he isn’t UFC Champ yet.
Or you have the opposite problem, where people think that because what they do works in there scenario, it is effective full stop.
e.g.
Billy is an MMA fan and trains at his local MMA gym. He knows that triangle chokes work. He knows this because he does them every week in training and his partners tap out. They work, he knows they work, end of conversation as far as Billy is concerned. Sarah is an SD instructor. She knows that if Billy tries to triangle choke someone out side the Chip Shop on a Friday night the guys mates will stomp Billy’s head flat.
Sarah explains therefore that whilst triangle chokes are effective in scenario a) (billy’s training) they are ineffective n scenario b) (outside the chip shop). Billy is unable to compute. He knows they work, he does them every week and his partners tap because they work. Therefore they will work in scenario a) all the way though to scenario z), and nothing Sarah or anyone else tells Billy will convince him otherwise.
Everything “works” and everything is effective, in the right context. But effectiveness can never be divorced from the criteria being used to judge its effectiveness. The problem is that some people cannot and will not ever understand that.
The clue to the answer is in your own post. People say something is “ineffective”. What you have to say is that a) is ineffective in scenario 1. The problem is that people fail to understand this, and assume if something fails under 1) scenario it fails under all scenarios.
e.g.
Craig does Krav Maga, He knows that kicking men in the bollocks works. He knows because he has done it in training and in “the street”. Craig decides to become an MMA fighter. Three years later Craig has record on no wins, no losses, and 17 disqualifications. Craig cannot understand why he isn’t UFC Champ yet.
Or you have the opposite problem, where people think that because what they do works in there scenario, it is effective full stop.
e.g.
Billy is an MMA fan and trains at his local MMA gym. He knows that triangle chokes work. He knows this because he does them every week in training and his partners tap out. They work, he knows they work, end of conversation as far as Billy is concerned. Sarah is an SD instructor. She knows that if Billy tries to triangle choke someone out side the Chip Shop on a Friday night the guys mates will stomp Billy’s head flat.
Sarah explains therefore that whilst triangle chokes are effective in scenario a) (billy’s training) they are ineffective n scenario b) (outside the chip shop). Billy is unable to compute. He knows they work, he does them every week and his partners tap because they work. Therefore they will work in scenario a) all the way though to scenario z), and nothing Sarah or anyone else tells Billy will convince him otherwise.
Everything “works” and everything is effective, in the right context. But effectiveness can never be divorced from the criteria being used to judge its effectiveness. The problem is that some people cannot and will not ever understand that.
Because you don't have any.
Same here. I think the argument is more common among TMA and MMA fan boys. I've yet to meet some who trains MMA and voices the same perception.
That's a new piece of British idiom for me.
Agreed. The times I've ended up in a group (outside MA, usually) with someone who trained/competed in MMA, we had more in common than most of the rest of the group. Never had a problem with folks from another style, approach, or camp, except online.
I think Steve and I are a good example of another part of this. I don't think we disagree nearly as much as it looks like in discussions. We have some fundamental differences of opinion, but they are not major differences, and there's far more we agree on. In a forum, we look diametrically opposed. Sit us together, and we'd have a lot to disagree on, and a lot to agree on. We might even step on the mats to compare techniques, or even to try our skills against each other (I'm betting Steve wins that one). And it would all be with respect - a respect that doesn't show up as clearly on a forum.
And you can't make the argument that they are different just because a specific style (or several) don't. The forms I've trained in, taught, and developed, used the same movement and power generation as the application.
I'm not sure I agree with that definition. I consider myself TMA, though I borrow movements freely. That's how our art was created, and pretty much how all arts formed.
