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

[Gerry Seymour]

This is what I mean when I say in self defence results dont matter.

Okay, I don't agree with the choice of words (the results do matter to the student - - just not as much as you might expect), but if that's what you meant by it, then yeah. But that's not really about training for SD. It's about how much (and what) people want out of their training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I see you rated my two karateka doing Taikyoku kata together as 'funny.' And it certainly is in more ways than one.


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.



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.




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.

You have a problem in your logic. You keep talking about traditional development vs. sparring. Then you use sparring (in competition) to prove your point.

 

[drop bear]

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.

Tiger is the martial arts version of NASA.

You get all these top guys together competing and pushing each other. In any endeavor. And you will gen innovation.

This is why I keep saying martial arts is driven by the practitioners. Not by the founders. Not even by the instructors.

 

[ShotoNoob]

What ARE you on about??

No. What are you on about?

 

[drop bear]

Okay, I don't agree with the choice of words (the results do matter to the student - - just not as much as you might expect), but if that's what you meant by it, then yeah. But that's not really about training for SD. It's about how much (and what) people want out of their training.

See I think results matter to the student more than a lot of instructors give them credit for.

Results don't matter to the instructor.

If one day a week knew in ten years he would get manhandled by a guy who put in 6 months of real work.

He would come in more often.

Self defense manufacturers results to satisfy this need.

One day of women's self defence and they are throwing around 90kg guys like rag dolls.

 

[ShotoNoob]

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.

MMA same problem.

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).

TMA takes longer to become accomplished at. It's training is more sophisticated in nature. Which is a huge reason you don't see it in MMA effectively.

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.

This is true as a generality but has to be said within the competence of the individual training.

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.

If you are training TMA competently, a striking emphasis will take care of the grappling based on principle. Technical proficiency across all techniques is always ideal.

 

[ShotoNoob]

You have a problem in your logic. You keep talking about traditional development vs. sparring. Then you use sparring (in competition) to prove your point.

Why is that illogical GPS? The bias is in your thinking because you identify with Camp 1 that actual fighting is the key end point to fighting competency.

My position is actual fighting isn't the key, it's the preparation to fight by the other parts of the traditional karate curriculum aside from actual fighting.

READ CAREFULLY AND CONSIDER.

It's the better prepared fighter who wins. Not the better in free sparring training.

Because you want to win in actual fighting (*we all do), you presume actual fighting is the key to developing that skill. It's laced throughout your narratives. And as I've stipulated previously, it's a valid way to train and your way works.

My position is that my way works better (has the potential). Actual fighting is always the ultimated test,,, it's not in my book of traditional karate, as the best way to prepare.

That is all.

 

[ShotoNoob]

If you think you're being clear, you're not. Simple and straightforward.

You've made some direct responses to my substantive posts. So my answers are better.

EDIT: And I'm waiting on a review of my discussion in response to your sparring v.s kata theory question. I specifically addressed your query, in organized detail w illustrations.

The dichotomy of how to produce the better fighter. Waiting.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Tiger is the martial arts version of NASA.

You get all these top guys together competing and pushing each other. In any endeavor. And you will gen innovation.

This is why I keep saying martial arts is driven by the practitioners. Not by the founders. Not even by the instructors.

Instructors are (or, rather can be) among the practitioners. So, yes, I agree. What I'm hoping to build within my own small program is a group of students who question and change stuff. I teach my way, and hope they'll pass along whatever of that they find useful. More importantly (for future students), I hope they'll figure out some stuff I didn't figure out, or at least some stuff I didn't get right.

But yes, the more high-level guys you get together, the more innovation you're likely to get. And competition will drive more innovation among those guys. I'm not sure all innovation is good from a total efficiency standpoint (some of the heavy focus in sport BJJ on guard passing, for instance, is good for competition, but not as valuable outside that), but a lot of innovation (even if it includes some that's less valuable) is better than no innovation.

 

[ShotoNoob]

Instructors are (or, rather can be) among the practitioners. So, yes, I agree. What I'm hoping to build within my own small program is a group of students who question and change stuff. I teach my way, and hope they'll pass along whatever of that they find useful. More importantly (for future students), I hope they'll figure out some stuff I didn't figure out, or at least some stuff I didn't get right.

Right. You are the locus of innovation. It's not the art, it's your incarnation.

But yes, the more high-level guys you get together, the more innovation you're likely to get. And competition will drive more innovation among those guys. I'm not sure all innovation is good from a total efficiency standpoint (some of the heavy focus in sport BJJ on guard passing, for instance, is good for competition, but not as valuable outside that), but a lot of innovation (even if it includes some that's less valuable) is better than no innovation.

In traditional karate, the curriculum is the high level "guy." Not you. Not me. Not some guy / gal 'cause their belt is worn.

Competition and your (you & your "top guys") will create top martial arts.

You are Camp 1 in my post.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

See I think results matter to the student more than a lot of instructors give them credit for.

I don't know where you'd draw that conclusion. From the effort and commitment I see from the average student, I don't think the immediacy and magnitude of the result is all that important to them.

Results don't matter to the instructor.

They always matter to me. And to every instructor I've had discussions with. We tend to get pretty bummed when students aren't making progress and getting better. So yeah, it does matter to the instructor.

If one day a week knew in ten years he would get manhandled by a guy who put in 6 months of real work. He would come in more often.

Maybe. I've had realistic discussions with students about what they can expect from their training. I've never seen it have much effect on their attendance or their intensity, unless they decided it just wasn't worth the training anymore.

Self defense manufacturers results to satisfy this need.
One day of women's self defence and they are throwing around 90kg guys like rag dolls.

I've never seen that. I've never seen a one-day class that included throws (students aren't ready to fall). I'm not saying nobody does that - I'm saying that's not the norm. Usually, at the end of a one-day class (women, men, kids, whatever), there's a discussion of the few things they've covered, an acknowledgement (re-acknowledgement, because it's usually already been said at the beginning) that what they've just done is gotten a taste and a couple of useful bits they could practice and make useful...but that none of that is going to serve them when they walk out the door, because developing skills takes actual work and time.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Why is that illogical GPS? The bias is in your thinking because you identify with Camp 1 that actual fighting is the key end point to fighting competency.

My position is actual fighting isn't the key, it's the preparation to fight by the other parts of the traditional karate curriculum aside from actual fighting.

READ CAREFULLY AND CONSIDER.

It's the better prepared fighter who wins. Not the better in free sparring training.

Because you want to win in actual fighting (*we all do), you presume actual fighting is the key to developing that skill. It's laced throughout your narratives. And as I've stipulated previously, it's a valid way to train and your way works.

My position is that my way works better (has the potential). Actual fighting is always the ultimated test,,, it's not in my book of traditional karate, as the best way to prepare.

That is all.

You presume to know what I presume. You presume incorrectly.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You've made some direct responses to my substantive posts. So my answers are better.

EDIT: And I'm waiting on a review of my discussion in response to your sparring v.s kata theory question. I specifically addressed your query, in organized detail w illustrations.

The dichotomy of how to produce the better fighter. Waiting.

I honestly can't follow your logic in some of your posts, so won't be responding to that one.

Here's what I'll say: if you don't spar on a regular basis, you can't really know if what you're training will work in sparring. Sparring is as close as we can get to actual fighting, so is - in my opinion - a necessary tool in refining training for fighting ability. Sparring can also be a part of training to fight (by limiting your tools to develop where you are weak, for example), but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what you keep showing in those competition videos. The feedback from that sparring is input for training. That makes the sparring a tool for training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In traditional karate, the curriculum is the high level "guy." Not you. Not me. Not some guy / gal 'cause their belt is worn.

I don't understand this paragraph.

 

[_Simon_]

Oh Caulfield Cup, we just won it.

Ah congrats guys!!

 

[ShotoNoob]

You presume to know what I presume. You presume incorrectly.

Yeah. Still not substance.

 

[ShotoNoob]

I honestly can't follow your logic in some of your posts, so won't be responding to that one.

Fair enough.

Here's what I'll say: if you don't spar on a regular basis, you can't really know if what you're training will work in sparring.

I understand your thinking & position.

Sparring is as close as we can get to actual fighting, so is - in my opinion - a necessary tool in refining training for fighting ability.

Yes. I understand and agree with your 1st sentence 100%, up to the ",". I will agree and support after the comma should one is speaking of the Camp 1, Applied Fighting Theory, which I illustrated with boxing, in my detail post.

Please recognize that I stipulate that is a valid way to train and is / can be effective in producing high level skills. Again professional boxers, good amateur boxers prime example arts.

The traditional karate model today also incorporates this thinking or approach, as kumite and competition make up 1 of the 3 cornerstones of the traditional karate training regimen.

So all good on that score.

ISparring can also be a part of training to fight (by limiting your tools to develop where you are weak, for example), but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what you keep showing in those competition videos. The feedback from that sparring is input for training. That makes the sparring a tool for training.

Agreed on sentence one, as I have noted by including boxing as an example and the traditional karate model curriculum of present times, also. Same with sentence two, although the emphasis in your personal approach and let's say MMA here in the USA there is more of a weight on actual competition in the learning process.

Sparring, all as you've described, is training tool both for what I call Camp 1, Applied Fighting, and Camp 2, the Traditional Karate Model.

GPS, I believe the majority of posters have said there is overlap (at least) in training methodology between TMA and MMA for contrast purposes.

So again all good.

 

[ShotoNoob]

I don't understand this paragraph.

Yeah, that's one of those that's saying a lot in a vague way. I'll get back on that. See my post below where I try to laser in on your thinking to contrast again mine.

Don't forget, everything you are doing teaching / practice wise is OK in my book.. It's just not mine, what I believe to be the accurate depiction of traditional karate / traditional martial arts.

BTW, it's more often the kung fu practitioners, & ikung fu nstructors in my area who think along my lines. The top-ranked master @ my dojo also concurs with my position, or should I am in line with his!

 

[ShotoNoob]

---FIGHTING TEST---

Shiina Mai JPN vs Parker Kim AUS - Quarter Final
439 views

Karate-do Focus
Published on Aug 29, 2017

Sparring is as close as we can get to actual fighting, so is - in my opinion - a necessary tool in refining training for fighting ability.

gpseymour = kumite = training (to see if you are working, to see what to change).

shotonoob = kumite = testing (what you know to be working in principle from your training before you ever step on to the tatame).
And, with allowance & accordance with your position, which is true.

Sparring can also be a part of training to fight (by limiting your tools to develop where you are weak, for example), but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what you keep showing in those competition videos. The feedback from that sparring is input for training. That makes the sparring a tool for training.

As above, now see below.

---TRAINING TO FIGHT---

Mai Shiina (Honbu Dojo JKA)
10,285 views

Dojo O-Ichiban
Published on Jul 28, 2014

I can defeat Camp 1 (in principle), which elevates fighting skill through sparring, because I have mastery over, have elevated myself. Kim Parker who looks to be similar rank, can approach Mai Shiina - hold her own at points, but in the end is outfought seriously at each critical juncture. Starting to see?

By my approach, this result or desired outcome stems from mastering (for working purposes) the traditional karate curriculum before I even begin to engage seriously in free sparring or competition. The free sparring is more of a verification that I have mastered karate for fighting purposes BEFOREHAND. Based on knowledge and skilled execution of all the underlying principles.

But of course this is me. And certain other traditional martial artists I've spoken about in my area. Nearly all the karate practitioner in my dojo believe as you do. I've given them some demonstrations though, that have shaken them up. In kumite, striking the opposition before they can react. Actually blocking strikes actively instead of trying to out-speed hit the other as we typically in formal karate kumite. Smashing multiple board without set up, warm up, absent all that wiggling into exact position you always see. Breaking multi-positional boards with kata moves.

Free sparring always, always makes a good resistance test, a good reality test. To me though, it's a test I know I should pass before I even contemplate doing so.

Again, this is difficult & problematic over the internet. And as a word of caution, training traditional karate wrongly, or kata wrongly is a waste of time for the most part. Just as TMA critics assert. We see massive fails in MMA because of this. I posted that Peek-a-Boo Boxer vs. the State Karate Champion Match video, perfect, perfect illustration.

Your approach of looking to active sparring for the benefits makes for a more pragmatic route.

I think this is one big reason why kumite was incorporated into the Shotokan model on mainland Japan early on. To make Shotokan and karate more relate-able and practical for more / most people. less theoretical.

Sound like we are getting somewhere?

P.S. I think her kata is pretty damn good. Time for a female to get a promotion, JKA.

 

[Martial D]

---FIGHTING TEST---

Shiina Mai JPN vs Parker Kim AUS - Quarter Final
439 views

Karate-do Focus
Published on Aug 29, 2017


gpseymour = kumite = training (to see if you are working, to see what to change).

shotonoob = kumite = testing (what you know to be working in principle from your training before you ever step on to the tatame).
And, with allowance & accordance with your position, which is true.



---TRAINING TO FIGHT---

Mai Shiina (Honbu Dojo JKA)
10,285 views

Dojo O-Ichiban
Published on Jul 28, 2014

I can defeat Camp 1, which elevates fighting skill through sparring, because I have mastery over myself. Starting to understand?

By my approach, this result or desired outcome stems from mastering (for working purposes) the traditional karate curriculum before I even begin to engage seriously in free sparring or competition. The free sparring is more of a verification that I have mastered karate for fighting purposes BEFOREHAND. Based on knowledge and skilled execution of all the underlying principles.

But of course this is me. And certain other traditional martial artists I've spoken about in my area. Nearly all the karate practitioner in my dojo believe as you do. I've given them some demonstrations though, that have shaken them up. In kumite, striking the opposition before they can react. Actually blocking strikes actively instead of trying to out-speed hit the other as we typically in formal karate kumite. Smashing multiple board without set up, warm up, absent all that wiggling into exact position you always see. Breaking multi-positional boards with kata moves.

Free sparring always, always makes a good resistance test, a good reality test. To me though, it's a test I know I should pass before I even contemplate doing so.

Again, this is difficult & problematic over the internet. And as a word of caution, training traditional karate wrongly, or kata wrongly is a waste of time for the most part. We see massive fails in MMA because of this. I posted that Peek-a-Boo Boxer vs. the State Karate Champion Match, perfect, perfect illustration. Your approach of looking to active sparring for the benefits is a much more pragmatic way.

I think this is one big reason why kumite was incorporated into the Shotokan model on mainland Japan early on. To make Shotokan and karate more relate-able and practical for more / most people. less theoretical.

Sound like we are getting somewhere?

I know what you mean. I sat in a Nascar once. I know where the pedals are and which way to turn the wheel. That's really all I need to win any Nascar race.