Why the hate between TMA and MMA?

[Kung Fu Wang]

Well keep in mind, the argument here is that one set of martial artists are adept at taking down skilled and unskilled opponents. Another set is skilled at taking down only unskilled opponents. Your mileage may vary.

You (general YOU) should use

- "solo" move to take down unskilled opponents.
- "combo" moves to take down skilled opponent.

You have to start from "sole" and move into "combo".

But IMO, if your (general YOU) solo move does not work on a skilled opponent, your solo move is not good enough. Again, that's a MA paradox.

1. If you can't take your opponent down by your single leg, your single leg is not good enough.
2. If your opponent can take you down by single leg, you are not a good wrestler.

1 and 2 are just contradict to each other.

 

[Hanzou]

This is part of the problem. The only "objective" evidence in your eyes is for something to be proven with the field of consensual/sport/fighting. But Karate kata isn't designed to function within the realms of consensual fighting, it is designed for self defence from non consensual criminal violence.

“The techniques of the kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter in an arena or on a battlefield. They were, however, most effective against someone who had no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behaviour.”

Consensual fighting and non consensual criminal violence are two different things. So you cannot measure the effectiveness of one by testing it within the realm of the another field that it was not designed to function in, anymore than you can test the effectiveness of a screwdriver by trying to mow the lawn with it.

You don't understand the problem (why consensual fighting is different to self defence) you don't understand how to interpret the movements within karate kata and you don't understand how to apply the techniques of karate kata for SD. There is no part of this discussion you understand. Further, the only evidence you will accept is for this to be proven in a field in which a) it is not designed to function and b) has been decided by you as the only true test, despite not understanding any part of the subject.

It is perfectly understandable then that you don't, and never will 'get it'. And this is not a problem. You don't understand any part of the problem or the solution, and this also isn't a problem , as has been explain your inability to undestand something does not diminish it effectiveness.

But this does not mean that you should be arguing with the people that do understand the problem and do understand one solution, that their solution will not work because it is not designed to function within a completely arbitrary measure that someone, who does not understand any part of this, had decided is the only true way to prove effectiveness.

You know about BJJ, I know little, hence I don't try to tell you what does and does not work within BJJ. You know what works, you done it, and the inability of other people to understand how it works has no bearing on its effectiveness. What I don't get is why you continue to argue with those of us who do understand the difference between consensual fighting and SD, and do know how to interpret and apply the the techniques of karate kata, and have done so in live situations, that our solution to the problem does not work. It work, we know it works, we do not need to prove to you it works, nor do we require you to understand how it works, nor do we need to prove its effectiveness in a completely different field that it is not designed to function in. What we do require is that you stop arguing about a subject that understand absolutely no part of, with the people who do.

I took my son to the hospital easter weekend as his was in severe abdominal pain. The Doctor told me they were going to rush him to theatre to perform an apomdectomy. I did not ask the surgeon to prove his diagnosis by beating me at monopoly because I had arbitrarily decided that is the only true test of his ability to understand both the problem and the solution. I know nothing of medicine, he does so I listen to him because he knows what he is talking about and I don't. Now my son is recovering well and we are sat here waiting for Dr Who to start, instead of organising his funeral which is what we would have been doing if I tried to have an arguement with the Dr and tell him he was wrong because he couldn't beat me at monopoly. This is, as idiotic as it sounds, is exactly what you are doing.

You do not understand what SD is, you do not understand how to interpret the movements of karate kata, you do not understand how to apply them to SD, and you do not understand the difference between consensual fighting and SD, so you should probably stop arguing with those of us who do, accept that you don't understand (and never will) move on, and stick to talking about the subject matter you do understand?

Your failure here is believing that I don't know what the difference is between SD and consensual fighting. I know exactly what the difference is. Our disagreement is YOUR belief that somehow aspects of consensual fighting doesn't pop up in SD and vice versa, and further the belief that skills that can be honed from consensual fighting cannot be used in SD, especially when it comes to the martial arts.

 

[Hanzou]

That's not necessarily the point. I can take down skilled people. But not highly skilled athletes who are more familiar with the rules than I am, and who have trained only for the skills useful in that context. They are training specifically to that context, and danged well should be better at it. If they are serious about competition at any high level (regional competition, etc.), they're probably also training far more than the average non-competitor and are in better shape. Those last two bits are points of personal commitment, and have nothing to do with the art/style.

Which is all fine and dandy, but my issue with that argument is what about the people who ARE training to become martial athletes? Why are they concentrated in one set of styles, and completely avoid another set of styles? Before my injury, I taught Bjj at a MMA gym. Why aren't they learning Aikijutsu, Aikido, Praying Mantis, or even Judo?

A bit more to the overall point; There ARE people in this thread who are saying that karate and other TMAs weren't designed for competitive fighting. That's an argument I take issue with, considering that many of those arts have a history of competitive fighting that abruptly ends when the UFC emerges on the scene.

 

[oaktree]

That's interesting. I refer to those as 2-man drills. I view kata as being a solo form training exercise like Chinese taolu. When involving pre-set movements in action with a training partner, I think of sets or drills. But that's all good. I also would like to make a correction in what I said earlier, as my Japanese isn't that good. I said katame-waza by mistake. What I actually meant was kata-gatame or kata-gurume, in which the word "kata" means shoulder. I edited my post to fix the mistake, but you quoted me before I had a chance (lol). It's all good.

The movement is prearranged attack prearranged defense in classical Japanese arts

 

[Kong Soo Do]

If I were 100% I would love to. I think it would be very a good time.

I'm sorry you're not 100%.

Just to make sure the premise is understood, hypothetically, you can rely on your training and I can rely on mine. Mine incorporates firearms, kubaton (and other types of batons) and edged weapons. In the ring I would have my HK P30SK, serrated Hawkbill and kubaton which is my normal EDC. Is this acceptable?

 

[Hanzou]

I'm sorry you're not 100%.

Yeah me too.

Just to make sure the premise is understood, hypothetically, you can rely on your training and I can rely on mine. Mine incorporates firearms, kubaton (and other types of batons) and edged weapons. In the ring I would have my HK P30SK, serrated Hawkbill and kubaton which is my normal EDC. Is this acceptable?

Your point is well taken (no pun intended). However, would you really consider a kung fu exponent (for example) who is trained in kicking, punching, joint locking, throws, etc. to be really at a level of disadvantage against a Bjj exponent as someone fighting unarmed against someone armed to the teeth?

 

[JP3]

Everyone wants to train in the 'best' system. When they find a system they like, they find reasons to bash other systems. I suppose it's nature. And it doesn't matter what kind of system is being bashed or lauded; it's just the way people can be sometimes.

I think most of it is from people who aren't that well-versed in their own systems. Serious martial artists who have been training for many years tend to have a great deal more respect for each other, I think.

In the dojo where I train, nobody puts down any other styles out there. We are martial artists. We train. We're interested in what we're doing. If somebody brings something in from another style or another dojo, and it works, hey, we'll use it, why not? If it doesn't, it doesn't, but that doesn't mean the style or the technique is no good. Maybe we weren't shown it properly.

I would suggest that anyone interested in comparing styles with the aim of putting someone else's style down consider first that they themselves are probably not all that and a bag of chips, and second that not every person who trains wants to do the same things. "I can run ten miles and kill five guys and not even be out of breath!" Yeah, kid, that's great. I am 56 years old. I won't run except to the bathroom unless I'm being chased. Kill five guys? Yeah, my morning breath can do that. Go away, I have to scratch some itchy spots.

"Go away kid, you bother me." comes to mind after reading that. W.C. Fields, from the movie "Poppy" 1936. Great stuff.

I've been lucky enough... well, except for my stint in KMA schools where the arrogance about the superiority of the style was... pervasive and unearned ... imo... to be in schools where it's like what Bill describes above. Open and willing to experiment and learn.

 

[JP3]

In any group, the most obnoxious folks tend to be the loudest. Most TMA folks don't hate MMA/Kickboxing/BJJ and most and most MMA/Kickboxing/BJJ folks don't hate TMAs.

(On a side note, no one even agrees on what a "TMA" is. Typically arts like TKD get lumped into the TMA category, while BJJ and Muay Thai do not - even though BJJ and Muay Thai are both older than TKD.)

Lots of people, including some of us on this forum (myself included) and some professional MMA fighters, train on both sides of the fence.

For those who do argue about the subject, there are a few likely causes.

Some people have a lot of ego invested in whatever system they train and want the emotional reassurance of feeling like their art provides all the answers they will ever need.

Some people have strong opinions about a certain approach to training (sparring vs no sparring, competition vs no competition, etc) and the MMA vs TMA arguments are just a proxy for disagreements on those issues.

Some people on the MMA side have only experienced crappy, McDojo-style "TMAs" and believe that is all there is on the TMA side.

Some people on the TMA side have bought into nonsense from their instructors about how their art is so deadly it can't used in MMA because they would be snapping people's necks left and right.

Some people are just fanboys and don't even train, but still want to pontificate about how their preferred system is the best.

Excellent. I wish I'd written that, but I didn't, so I had to quote it.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Yeah me too.



Your point is well taken (no pun intended). However, would you really consider a kung fu exponent (for example) who is trained in kicking, punching, joint locking, throws, etc. to be really at a level of disadvantage against a Bjj exponent as someone fighting unarmed against someone armed to the teeth?

I would expect both individuals to react, under stress, the way they've trained. I would expect them to react based upon the totality of their experience(s). To be clear, one is not necessarily 'tougher' than the other. One type of training is not better or worse than the other. But the end game differs so the methodology differs. Could a MMA do well in a street fight? Sure. But did specific things they did (or didn't do) in their training put them at a disadvantage? Yes. We have well documented cases where an individual reverted to their training under duress and it wasn't a good result. Thus training had to change. So as a high liability instructor (21 years now) I see all training through the lens of training vs. end result and what is the best way to achieve it.

If I were training for a MMA match I would NOT train the way I've trained my entire life. Sure, I might do well initially (or not at all) but my training would not have properly prepared me for that specific venue. The reverse is true, when training for SD I would not train in MMA or even some TMA that are heavily influenced by sport. Doesn't mean they suck, because the don't. But they are not the best vehicle to get to my intended destination.

Now one CAN train in some MMA/TMA and also have a focus on SD. But they need to incorporate all those things I've listed to make it the best vehicle i.e. multiple attackers, armed attackers, escape/evasion, laws governing SD, training in typical environments that fights/muggings/attempted rapes occur and all the other stuff that goes into a sound SD program. I will be teaching a woman's SD course again in the near future. Yes, it will have hands on stuff. The kind of stuff that is stupid-simple, gross motor skilled and retained in long term memory. It will include hardening their home and vehicle to make it harder to be attacked in. It will include weapons and defensive tools (such as flashlights). All that stuff and more goes into such training.

 

[drop bear]

I'm sorry you're not 100%.

Just to make sure the premise is understood, hypothetically, you can rely on your training and I can rely on mine. Mine incorporates firearms, kubaton (and other types of batons) and edged weapons. In the ring I would have my HK P30SK, serrated Hawkbill and kubaton which is my normal EDC. Is this acceptable?

You would need it.

 

[drop bear]

Ah, but let's continue that thought. In a sport competition you punch, kick and grapple a single, unarmed opponent using a pre-arranged rule set that both abide by, in a controlled environment. You get one or more rest breaks. Have corner people to advise you and treat any injuries you may have sustained. And if you've had enough you can quit and walk away.

None of that applies to self defense. So while you may punch, kick and grapple there exists a multitude of other more priority factors. For example, SD training should involve the laws governing use-of-force. SD training should cover avoidance, escape, evasion and de-escalation. Sports training doesn't cover that as it's not used in competition. Sports don't train for that because it doesn't apply. SD training should be against single as well as multiple attackers. Sports training doesn't involve multiple attackers because it's one-on-one. SD training should cover weapons use, improvised and conventional from the perspective of you and the attacker(s). Sports training doesn't cover that as no weapons are used in the ring. SD training should cover that the attacker(s) aren't going to obey rules. SD training shouldn't continually occur in a sterile, controlled environment. As I often note, SD training should be inside a car, in an elevator, on stairs, in a bed, in an alley, between two cars etc. None of that applies to sports training because it simply isn't applicable. In a SD situation there are no water breaks. No one is there to give you a pep talk. Medical care probably isn't immediately available.

Someone into competition doesn't focus on these things because none of it applies to their goal. If you're a TKD or kick boxer looking to score points by kicking a certain area of an opponents body...why would you waste time drilling on fighting inside a car preventing a carjacking? If on the other hand I want SD, why would I waste time training to put someone in an arm bar on the ground and trying to make them tap out? Thus two different goals and two different methodologies of training.

Someone once said that in sport, you're looking to win. In SD, you're looking to not lose.

Your points have some merit and some silliness. I mean water breaks? I dont think that is a determining factor of who is going to win a fight. And in looking at training for self defence it is the differences that make a difference. Not just every difference you can dredge up.

When we look at important factors of self defence. Big ones like how to actually fight. The little ones like rules and refs and corner people are not really worth focusing on.

If you are getting attacked by Mark Hunt hoping he wants to stop after five minutes is a pretty poor game plan.

So even with differences between training and self defence. You conclusion that you have to change the entire system is quite simply madness. If I dont train deescalation I need to do kata? If I want to fight a guy in a car. Sparring is inappropriate?

Come on this just isnt a serious look at self defence.

Go find an expert who handles deescalation. Go work out how to fight in a car.

It is really not that difficult.

From the sanitised mat to the situation. Notice the baby is not thrown out with the bathwater. They take a technique that they can practice and use it in a different environment. The determining factors are still not trivial things like water breaks.

 

[drop bear]

Except that's not objective evidence of whether it works against an unprepared attacker, anyway. It's a useful method of validation, but not being able to do something against a well-trained and prepared opponent does not necessarily mean it can't be used against an aggressive attacker who isn't expecting that response. That can be easily seen in how often a single powerful jab ends an altercation in the street, and how seldom the first dozen or so jabs have much effect in a competition. Nobody I know of would argue that jabs aren't effective in a short defensive fight, even though they rarely show much immediate ability to do damage in a contest.

The same could be said of a lot of standing grappling techniques. A skilled opponent who is aware they are in a contest can avoid giving the weight commitment or arm control that make those techniques available. But in an attack, trying to get it done fast (which is often the case, as seen in many videos), an attacker does commit weight and make arm control available. He also walks into jabs that the trained guy wouldn't.

You should base your self defence on what you can do in training.

For all seriousness. You dont go train an arm bar. Suck royaly at it and so come to the conclusion that the arm bar works anyway. Because criminals al have skinny wrists or something.

This is not good self defence.

Good self defence is a bunch of techniques that you are most likley to pull off not ones you are not likley to pull off unless unless.

 

[drop bear]

This is part of the problem. The only "objective" evidence in your eyes is for something to be proven with the field of consensual/sport/fighting. But Karate kata isn't designed to function within the realms of consensual fighting, it is designed for self defence from non consensual criminal violence.

“The techniques of the kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter in an arena or on a battlefield. They were, however, most effective against someone who had no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behaviour.”

Consensual fighting and non consensual criminal violence are two different things. So you cannot measure the effectiveness of one by testing it within the realm of the another field that it was not designed to function in, anymore than you can test the effectiveness of a screwdriver by trying to mow the lawn with it.

You don't understand the problem (why consensual fighting is different to self defence) you don't understand how to interpret the movements within karate kata and you don't understand how to apply the techniques of karate kata for SD. There is no part of this discussion you understand. Further, the only evidence you will accept is for this to be proven in a field in which a) it is not designed to function and b) has been decided by you as the only true test, despite not understanding any part of the subject.

It is perfectly understandable then that you don't, and never will 'get it'. And this is not a problem. You don't understand any part of the problem or the solution, and this also isn't a problem , as has been explain your inability to undestand something does not diminish it effectiveness.

But this does not mean that you should be arguing with the people that do understand the problem and do understand one solution, that their solution will not work because it is not designed to function within a completely arbitrary measure that someone, who does not understand any part of this, had decided is the only true way to prove effectiveness.

You know about BJJ, I know little, hence I don't try to tell you what does and does not work within BJJ. You know what works, you done it, and the inability of other people to understand how it works has no bearing on its effectiveness. What I don't get is why you continue to argue with those of us who do understand the difference between consensual fighting and SD, and do know how to interpret and apply the the techniques of karate kata, and have done so in live situations, that our solution to the problem does not work. It work, we know it works, we do not need to prove to you it works, nor do we require you to understand how it works, nor do we need to prove its effectiveness in a completely different field that it is not designed to function in. What we do require is that you stop arguing about a subject that understand absolutely no part of, with the people who do.

I took my son to the hospital easter weekend as his was in severe abdominal pain. The Doctor told me they were going to rush him to theatre to perform an apomdectomy. I did not ask the surgeon to prove his diagnosis by beating me at monopoly because I had arbitrarily decided that is the only true test of his ability to understand both the problem and the solution. I know nothing of medicine, he does so I listen to him because he knows what he is talking about and I don't. Now my son is recovering well and we are sat here waiting for Dr Who to start, instead of organising his funeral which is what we would have been doing if I tried to have an arguement with the Dr and tell him he was wrong because he couldn't beat me at monopoly. This is, as idiotic as it sounds, is exactly what you are doing.

You do not understand what SD is, you do not understand how to interpret the movements of karate kata, you do not understand how to apply them to SD, and you do not understand the difference between consensual fighting and SD, so you should probably stop arguing with those of us who do, accept that you don't understand (and never will) move on, and stick to talking about the subject matter you do understand?

You didn't take your son to a witch doctor or a faith healer either.

You took him to somone who was objectively effective at treating illness

 

[Tez3]

What fun.
This thread has turned into exactly something most of us knew it would, much thanks to the OP who opened this all up again.
Remind me to go on a medical forum or a body building one, maybe a car enthusiast's one and tell them on the basis I once saw a stamp or a car and can lift weights a little they are all wrong.
I get that there's people who don't use or like kata, it's fine but don't lecture those who do use it on how useless it is based on a small amount of poor instruction once received.
Every time kata gets mentioned it's jumped on, 'oh it's so useless... you don't fight like that...it's not real...you'd lose in the cage....etc etc etc'. it's doesn't matter how many times we explain, how many examples we show, what we get back is like a stuck vinyl record. How many threads is this on now, how many posts jumped on because that word 'kata' is mentioned?
How about we just draw the line now? You don't like kata, we get it, how about you just shut up about it now? How about we discuss kata bunkai etc among ourselves and you don't join in? How about we just amicably agree to disagree and just get on with training how we want to, how we find effective?

 

[drop bear]

What fun.
This thread has turned into exactly something most of us knew it would, much thanks to the OP who opened this all up again.
Remind me to go on a medical forum or a body building one, maybe a car enthusiast's one and tell them on the basis I once saw a stamp or a car and can lift weights a little they are all wrong.
I get that there's people who don't use or like kata, it's fine but don't lecture those who do use it on how useless it is based on a small amount of poor instruction once received.
Every time kata gets mentioned it's jumped on, 'oh it's so useless... you don't fight like that...it's not real...you'd lose in the cage....etc etc etc'. it's doesn't matter how many times we explain, how many examples we show, what we get back is like a stuck vinyl record. How many threads is this on now, how many posts jumped on because that word 'kata' is mentioned?
How about we just draw the line now? You don't like kata, we get it, how about you just shut up about it now? How about we discuss kata bunkai etc among ourselves and you don't join in? How about we just amicably agree to disagree and just get on with training how we want to, how we find effective?

If you are in the audience on jerry springer.

You are still on jerry springer.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Every time kata gets mentioned it's jumped on,...

My opinion on this has changed 3 times in my life.

When I

- was young, I had learned more than 50 forms. I was pretty much a form collector. I loved form back then.
- started tournament competition. Fighting was the only thing that I was interested. I stop form training. I hated form in that period of time.
- getting older, I use the form that I had created myself (not the form that I had learned from my teachers) to keep myself in good physical shape (when training partner is not available). I neither love nor hate form.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Which is all fine and dandy, but my issue with that argument is what about the people who ARE training to become martial athletes? Why are they concentrated in one set of styles, and completely avoid another set of styles? Before my injury, I taught Bjj at a MMA gym. Why aren't they learning Aikijutsu, Aikido, Praying Mantis, or even Judo?

A bit more to the overall point; There ARE people in this thread who are saying that karate and other TMAs weren't designed for competitive fighting. That's an argument I take issue with, considering that many of those arts have a history of competitive fighting that abruptly ends when the UFC emerges on the scene.

Because those styles don't normally aim to deliver training to someone who wants to train 10-30 hours per week, develop their highest fitness, and train against the highest level of skill. The martial athletes typically seek the best training ground for their goal.

The second paragraph is an entirely different issue, and I agree that - in the least - some folks are mis-stating the competitive background of their art. I do think Karate wasn't actually designed for competition. Competition became a major part of the training (perhaps always was - I'm no historian), but it was always competition within a certain set of limits. I'm not sure some of that competition wasn't counter-productive (soft point fighting) if the objective was self-defense fighting ability. Of course, that's not everyone's goal, so maybe those types of competition just fit those folks. I don't have a problem with an art not being a good match for inter-art competition, so long as it does what it should (whatever that expectation is, which probably varies by school and again by student).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm sorry you're not 100%.

Just to make sure the premise is understood, hypothetically, you can rely on your training and I can rely on mine. Mine incorporates firearms, kubaton (and other types of batons) and edged weapons. In the ring I would have my HK P30SK, serrated Hawkbill and kubaton which is my normal EDC. Is this acceptable?

That's an extreme position, and doesn't contribute to the debate. You wouldn't get to use some of those things against someone who was subduing you without injuring you, so why should you get to use them against a martial artist who is doing that in a ring?

 

[Ironbear24]

Which is all fine and dandy, but my issue with that argument is what about the people who ARE training to become martial athletes? Why are they concentrated in one set of styles, and completely avoid another set of styles? Before my injury, I taught Bjj at a MMA gym. Why aren't they learning Aikijutsu, Aikido, Praying Mantis, or even Judo?

A bit more to the overall point; There ARE people in this thread who are saying that karate and other TMAs weren't designed for competitive fighting. That's an argument I take issue with, considering that many of those arts have a history of competitive fighting that abruptly ends when the UFC emerges on the scene.

The answer you want to hear.

Because MMA is just hands down better than all TMA. Wear tap out shirts with pride and make sure to not miss the Joe Rogan podcasts.

 

[Ironbear24]

Are we really going to act like a woman who practices kata all the time is just as capable as MMA fighters like Mckenzie Dern or Holly Holm to get a big guy off of them?

Ladies and gentlemen this is what is known as a strawman argument.