Why until recently effective TMA practitioners were not represented in MMA?

Tez3 said:
I suspect I'm being insulted here. When you say 'that business' I still have no idea what you mean. I also don't know what you think my martial arts training is. Still very confusing.
Click to expand...

Suspect all you want. What's in your state of mind, well that's what's in there. Confusing's a constantly recurring theme you en-ounce. Constant. May I suggest you ease back, take some time to ponder.

There's lots of detailed posts of mine to look over, should you want to try & get an idea.
 
DaveB said:
I direct you to the highlighted text.

A. If MMA is a training model as opposed to a style, then it is different from tma. Tma are fighting methods, in some cases collection of fighting methods. The training model used is variable. It changes due to time and place and person. A fighting method differs from a training model in that it is what happens when you fight as opposed to when you train, as in the training model.

B. There is no reason that MMA couldn't be the training model for a TMA. In fact most of the training in Drop Bears Tiger promo is things I've done in TMA schools.

C. There are distinct benefits to training towards competition with competition experienced coaches, such as better guidance in how to fight for the individual and better balancing of training programmes to improve fight fitness. MMA also has the advantage of mixing fighting styles to cover areas not covered in a traditional fighting methods.
Click to expand...

You've brought in some interesting points there.

Paragraph A highlights some of the difference in philosophy between the practices of MMA and the individual, predecessor arts prior to the commercialization of MMA as a media business.

Paragraph B. is for sure applicable. From what I glean, Tez's European martial art style which was founded on Wado Ryu follows this path.

Paragraph C then looks on the individually competitive aspect, and certainly captures how MMA competitors as a whole approach any particular match or venue.

On your last sentence of Paragraph C, here is where MMA shines because of the diversity in arts or styles that it centers on. Traditional karate does cover grappling (certain styles extensively) in principle; often in practice the striking technicals make up the bulk of what's trained.

That's a helluva perspective. Bravo.
 
ShotoNoob said:
Sure. Yet we Internet martial artists quote MMA wins & loses all the time. In the proper context, they can support an argument. It's very problematic to capture all the dynamics and convey all that over the INTERNET at the same too.

I can go along with all of your quote, but it's not comprehensive. The divide (and I noticed you like / funny) is you have a full contact mentality while I don't. I'm in the kata camp. You're in the emphasis on sparring camp. There's a difference in principle on how best to approach traditional martial arts.

I've had me, myself challenged over the years by the aggressive, muay thai, boxing, rough tough karate contingent. There's no need to travel to Hawaii or continually prove what I have achieved against every doubter in the world. It's up to the doubters to challenge themselves. And I've won those challenges for the most part. My emphasis, how a non-athlete like me (not the State karate champion physical specimen @ all) was on how I trained. And that's largely by what was presented in traditional martial arts schools.

If you are curious on how it works in effect, it's the same as Mai. I strike the opponent more dynamically than they can react. I can also support striking with this strange karate thing called blocking. One doesn't see frequent active blocking in formal karate kumite., yet the traditional karate curriculum's and manuals all provide for it. Including Renee's Okinawan kata. Maybe blocks work.

People have strong opinions and that's fine. The far majority of those challenging mine (including instructors, tournament participants) have fallen against me in my venue. Often too, those of higher skill than me, typically kung fu stylists, we don't bother to spar because we understand there is no point because of the mis-match in skills.

Kung fu stylists in my area conventionally and traditionally spend more time training the preparatory components of the curriculum, in basics, forms, one-step or self defense technicals, than sparring. My traditional karate training model follows along that lines which is also the pre-Shotokan era model traditionally speaking.

If karate practitioners want to practice say, Kyo and use the hands up guard, that's all legit in my book. It's just a departure from the traditional karate model in general, and not the kind of karate guard Kyo's either base art of Shotokan employs or Goju Ryu employed. I hold both types work, I believe the traditional karate guard is more effective once skilled. That's an example of tradition versus the more modern Kyo full contact paractice.
Click to expand...
A question for you: if you don't spar regularly, how do you know you can do the things you're saying you can do? That's a serious question, because you're speaking of realistic accomplishments in terms of combat, but saying you're in the kata-not-sparring camp.

(A side note, I don't think these are opposites. They are options. Most folks I know who do kata ALSO spar, some of them reasonably hard contact.)
 
drop bear said:
Of course you can compare these systems.

You compare it by seeing how the professionals do it better.

People who hack out on horses would ride better if they trained more like jockeys.

If people looked at professional mma fighters and compared how they trained they would become better at civilian self defense.

You can compare apples and better apples.
Click to expand...
That makes sense in a post, but is it actually true? If someone trains - with the same intensity they bring to a hobbyist-oriented TMA school - at an MMA gym, will they end up getting better than using that intensity and time at a TMA school?
 
drop bear said:
People can do what they want. But the more effective their training is the better a martial artist they will become.

If results mattered in self defence then yes I would say train full time.

If the results are more down to the individual than the style. It is an indication the style isn't working.
Click to expand...
I was actually thinking about this the other day, and I think I've figured out one of the places you and I have trouble communicating, DB. See, people who train for the purpose of self-defense rarely are actually trying to get as good at it as they possibly can. They are trying to get better at it. That's a relative term, and how much better they want to get, as well as what priority they place on that goal, will affect how much they are willing to, and interested in, putting into their training.

Many folks who want to improve their ability to defend themselves are actually quite happy with getting to "better" in a few months. They're quite satisfied with slow improvement over a long period of time, because they don't really feel threatened. It's just something they want to be better at, should they ever need it, and their desire is pretty vague.

So, yeah, if someone wanted to become the best they can at self-defense, deep training with a lot of intensity, many hours a week, would be a good idea. For most of us, we had other priorities we balanced with that, so mostly didn't take that route.
 
Steve said:
If you took 300 regular people, sent 100 to a school that trains "tma" and 100 to a school that trains MMA or even some other combat sport (wrestling, boxing, Muay Thai, BJJ), and then 100 who don't train at all as a control. The two groups who train both train 3 nights each week for 90 minutes. After a year, how do you think the three groups would fare in a fight? To be clear, I'm not talking about professional athletes or elite athletes or even people who are athletically inclined.

MMA is a training model. The difference in the training model is exactly what DB is pointing to. To say that MMA is an extension of TMA is a copout, like when Someone brags about how their cousin is successful, implying that they are also successful by proxy, or that they could also be successful if they wanted to be, while dismissing the hard work involved with success. Take the doctor example. A guy who works 80 hours at the hospital isn't going to become a great martial artist. Probably developing some real skill as a doctor, though. That person is making a choice.
Click to expand...
I think it depends how they train. TMA isn't a consistent training model, so if you sent those folks to 100 random TMA programs, you're probably going to get a huge range of results. As we've discussed before, one of the advantages of some types of competition is they tend to weed out programs/instructors who can't deliver a win, or at least a competitive...competitor. A good TMA school, with a focus on what actually works in a fight (as we've talked about before - not actually the focus of all TMA schools), should be able to produce reasonable results in that same timeframe. I'd guess they'll be in the same ballpark, under that last assumption. Of course, that also has to assume all 300 stay in the program - competition does tend to also weed out people who don't develop as fast or are less gifted (not a universal, but a general truism). Of course, the question remains...are we talking about TMA with no competition? I'd guess that TMA with competition (something roughly similar to the format we're evaluating on) will have somewhat better results than if there's no competition. Internal (informal) competition inside the school will be better than no competition, but probably less effective than open competition.

All that presupposes the competition we're talking about (including the combat sport) are training something in alignment with the assessment we're doing at the end. BJJ fare badly if the end test is striking, but better if it's fewer rules. And a similar setup for boxing (though they seem to be less adaptable to open rules if they don't train to it). Likewise, a TMA school that doesn't train to a similar fight style to the ruleset will have more trouble.
 
gpseymour said:
I was actually thinking about this the other day, and I think I've figured out one of the places you and I have trouble communicating, DB. See, people who train for the purpose of self-defense rarely are actually trying to get as good at it as they possibly can. They are trying to get better at it. That's a relative term, and how much better they want to get, as well as what priority they place on that goal, will affect how much they are willing to, and interested in, putting into their training.
Click to expand...

This is what I mean when I say in self defence results dont matter.
 
I see you rated my two karateka doing Taikyoku kata together as 'funny.' And it certainly is in more ways than one.
gpseymour said:
A question for you: if you don't spar regularly, how do you know you can do the things you're saying you can do?
Click to expand...

It all comes down to an understanding of what traditional karate training does for you. I've posted all over on this, numerous time and in any number of examples. It's really problematic to take this farther over the internet. You look and read at an illustration and see A (your approach) and I see B (my approach). The illustration by a computer screen is inescapably handicapped that way.

So that makes for loggerheads. I went to your website and it all makes general martial sense. Generally, cause it's a website / computer screen.

gpseymour said:
That's a serious question, because you're speaking of realistic accomplishments in terms of combat, but saying you're in the kata-not-sparring camp.
Click to expand...

Sure, and it's a very legitimate question.

CAMP ONE: THE APPLIED FIGHTING CAMP
​
I want to focus on boxing for a moment on the striking end. I feel the sweet science is very well designed and comprehensive in it's approach. in boxin, TMU, there is great emphasis of sparring, ring time with opponents boxing back at you, in order to develop your actual ability to box (fight), and to hone an refine your craft.

To further support the boxing / sparring heavy approach, we receive the benefit of pressure testing against an active, competitive opponent. And with the reality testing which goes along with same, because our opponent may well be able to succeed against our mistakes or mistaken ideas.

I call this the applied fighting camp because you ultimately learn how best to fight through actively simulating actual fighting.

And finally, this makes perfect intuitive sense and works through what I call sport training the physical feedback loop of experience of fighting.

We can all agree great boxers, good boxers rise out of this applied fighting training method.



(A side note, I don't think these are opposites. They are options. Most folks I know who do kata ALSO spar, some of them reasonably hard contact.)[/QUOTE]

To digress for a moment, you've mixed 'opposites' with 'options.' We should define the alternative first, then talk about mixing because even in boxing this is what is done. In practice though, I do agree in principle with what you are proposing.

CAMP TWO: THE TRADITIONAL KARATE (MARTIAL ARTS) METHOD​

Here, as opposed to ascending off of the actively fighting competitor to train, the focus is on personal development. The whole mind, body, spirit thing and all that that means which then becomes very subjective. Why? Because we have moved beyond the physical interaction of actual fighting to self training those qualities. The definitions become murkier and more intangible. We have thoughts, but they can only become tangible martially through largely physical action. Certain exception.

To make my point, I'll put up a basic karate punch video.
6. Oi Zuki JKA.mp4
6,986 views

DojoMizuNagareDD
Published on Mar 17, 2012

SUBSCRIBE 4.4K
Karate, Shotokan, JKA, Japan, Headquater, Kihon, Kata, Kumite

TMU, this is probably the most excellent Shotokan format I've ever witnessed. I say that not because it looks strong & sharp which it does. I say that because I understand the traditional karate principles embodied in the physical format which the JKA Master is presenting.

The focus of this exercise is developing body, mind, spirit. All three are represented if you know how these are expressed through karate format.

I discovered this soon after joining my first TMA school because my 1st TMA instructor lined us up in natural stance and had us practice what he called center punches slowly. We we're "punching," that was only the form of the technique selected for the exercise. There was no one in front of us. We weren't in a fighting stance or posture. We weren't trying to go fast like in a fight. I realized we were training ourselves along the lines which I described. We were trying to get it all to work together internally, with the body going along.

Now go back to the Shotokan Master and look again.

Here's how that self development, looks in action. And BTW, traditional karate styles today conventionally train just as you suggest, but that can be a trap.
Shiina Mai JPN vs Parker Kim AUS - Quarter Final
439 views

Karate-do Focus

Kim Parker has a lot of guts 'cause the Japanese in Japan, karate is a religion in how intensely they practice. I'd never go to train with the JKA.

Mai Shiina wins because of stronger body, mind, spirit which are all represented in principle with the JKA Master's lunge punch rendition. The same process of both practitioners is the same principles.

So we will just end this with a question since this can't be determined over the internet.

How did Mai succeed over Kim when both train the same curriculum? Was it kihon work that was better? Was it kata practice? Or like boxing structurally, was it through sparring and / or actual kumite? The traditional Shotokan karate curriculum as established in Japan has all three components. There is a blend. What is the mix?

This is the training quest of the traditional karate student.
 
drop bear said:
Which means there is no place where people are really innovating the art.
Click to expand...
Mmm...not the same thing. I've made significant changes from how I was taught. Even some changes to what is taught. I don't have to train full-time to manage some innovation. So I'm not sure why you equated that kind of intense training to innovation. I think competition is a bigger driver of innovation than time spent training (look how many guards there are in BJJ now), and cross-training (mixing experience between arts) is probably the other big driver of innovation.

One important thing to note about why MY training hasn't gone entirely to the most efficient fight prep. There's material in NGA (and, IMO, in most TMA) that's there for "fiddling". It's not high-payoff training time - wouldn't pass the test with MMA, nor probably for BJJ - for people like me who like to fiddle with stuff. That fiddling is one of the reasons I never wandered to a less-traditional art. I like fiddling with things for the sheer intellectual pursuit of it, the fun of figuring out how to do something that looks and feels cool, even if it probably gains me a 1% improvement in my fighting skill, at best. It's kind of like those folks who want to try out tricking. It's not really the most efficient way to spend training time, but if it's fun...why not? I prefer to put some fighting basics in before getting to any of the fiddling, but I still like to eventually get to it.

Now, I'm probably speaking out of school on some of that, so don't hold my view against the rest of TMA (many of whom wouldn't consider my MA very "T"). That's just what I see in TMA that interests me.

Are these arts then at least looking at the methods of guys that do train full time at elite gyms?
Click to expand...
Arts don't look at anything. The practitioners do. And I don't know what most folks in NGA do - I have only sporadic contact with folks in the art outside my old school (where I go back and train several times a year). I have more contact with folks in other arts than within my own art. So I can only speak about myself, so I can confidently say that at least one person in NGA has been looking at those training methods.
 
gpseymour said:
That makes sense in a post, but is it actually true? If someone trains - with the same intensity they bring to a hobbyist-oriented TMA school - at an MMA gym, will they end up getting better than using that intensity and time at a TMA school?
Click to expand...

Yeah. Because you will be crap in a good school.

If you go to a competitive school everyone who trains harder will get better than you.

If you go to an easier school. You will be comparatively better. And your training methodology will be validated.

Otherwise say one day a week gets his but kicked. And says right. It is time to become a beast. It is really hard if everyone around you is happy being a dud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Gloves?

Previous Thread

UFC observation

Next Thread

Similar threads

S
TMA Applications in MMA?
Replies
18
Views
4K
Tony Dismukes
Tony Dismukes
M
  • Locked
MMA vs TMA
42 43 44
Replies
868
Views
89K
Bob Hubbard
Bob Hubbard
L
What Did The UFC Really Prove?
2 3
Replies
45
Views
10K
hardheadjarhead
hardheadjarhead
K
MMA Description
Replies
10
Views
6K
theneuhauser
T
K
Tae Kwon Do in MMA
4 5 6
Replies
109
Views
17K
Shu2jack
S

Latest Discussions

Back
Top