MMA vs. TMA Training Methods: Is One Better Than The Other?

[MJS]

While reading the Martial Artist vs. Pro Fighter thread, I came across a few posts that made me stop and think. We obviously have 2 groups of people, whos methods are different, but both camps will defend their respective training methods. We have those that feel that because they can do eye pokes and groin kicks, that they're the best, and we have those that feel that because they train hard with lots of hard contact, that they are the best.

While reading some posts in that other thread, I started getting the impression that some feel that the MMA folks are really head and shoulders above all other arts, and in a confrontation, the MMA guy will come out on top every time.

I will admit...I've seen some TMA schools, where I really had to stop and wonder if these people ae really capable of doing anything other than defending themselves against the air. I've talked to others, and after hearing how they train, and seeing, (mostly on clips) of how they train, I'm sure they're pretty capable of taking care of themselves.

IMHO, I think that if you're really serious about training for Sd purposes, that you have to not only train as real as possible, but also not be afraid to have hard contact. Not saying that every single class needs to be this way, as I stated in my hard vs. soft training thread, but it needs to be there. I also feel that if you want to be really well rounded, you need to be capable of doing more than just fighting with your fists. While there are, I'm sure, some MMA fighters, that do have some real world experience, I'm sure there're many that do not, but assume they do, due to the fact that because they fight in the ring, that they're prepared for anything. Given the fact that many fights involve weapons of some sort, I would imagine that would be an area that would need to be addressed.

People, in other threads, have mentioned the use of a weapon, should they find themselves in a bad position with someone who grapples. Others have frowned upon that, saying that pulling a weapon, against someone whos simply using empty hand stirkes against you, is overkill. However, overkill or not, looking bad in the eyes of the law or court, fact is, there are people who would not think twice about using a weapon, should they have one.

For myself....I feel that each method has advantages and disadvantages over each other. Look at both, take from both, and add what you feel important, to your respective training methods.

Looking forward to hearing other opinions. :)

[ralphmcpherson]

While reading the Martial Artist vs. Pro Fighter thread, I came across a few posts that made me stop and think. We obviously have 2 groups of people, whos methods are different, but both camps will defend their respective training methods. We have those that feel that because they can do eye pokes and groin kicks, that they're the best, and we have those that feel that because they train hard with lots of hard contact, that they are the best.

While reading some posts in that other thread, I started getting the impression that some feel that the MMA folks are really head and shoulders above all other arts, and in a confrontation, the MMA guy will come out on top every time.

I will admit...I've seen some TMA schools, where I really had to stop and wonder if these people ae really capable of doing anything other than defending themselves against the air. I've talked to others, and after hearing how they train, and seeing, (mostly on clips) of how they train, I'm sure they're pretty capable of taking care of themselves.

IMHO, I think that if you're really serious about training for Sd purposes, that you have to not only train as real as possible, but also not be afraid to have hard contact. Not saying that every single class needs to be this way, as I stated in my hard vs. soft training thread, but it needs to be there. I also feel that if you want to be really well rounded, you need to be capable of doing more than just fighting with your fists. While there are, I'm sure, some MMA fighters, that do have some real world experience, I'm sure there're many that do not, but assume they do, due to the fact that because they fight in the ring, that they're prepared for anything. Given the fact that many fights involve weapons of some sort, I would imagine that would be an area that would need to be addressed.

People, in other threads, have mentioned the use of a weapon, should they find themselves in a bad position with someone who grapples. Others have frowned upon that, saying that pulling a weapon, against someone whos simply using empty hand stirkes against you, is overkill. However, overkill or not, looking bad in the eyes of the law or court, fact is, there are people who would not think twice about using a weapon, should they have one.

For myself....I feel that each method has advantages and disadvantages over each other. Look at both, take from both, and add what you feel important, to your respective training methods.

Looking forward to hearing other opinions. :)I have to agree regarding defence against weapons. These days almost every assault I hear about contains a weapon and usually multiple attackers also and both of these situations need to be addressed to fully be "street effective". People no longer care about what is 'fair' , a couple of years ago an off duty police officer and his wife were beaten nearly to death in a suburban park by 13 people (some as young as 12) with fence pailings and left for dead not far from where I live. Preparing for a one on one fight with rules does not completely prepare someone for a real life situation in my opinion.

[K831]

You and I have posted in several of these types of threads in the past. Sometimes, my observations about MMA are taken to assume I lack the appropriate respect for them as athletes, competitors and martial artists. That isn’t the case, as many of my other posts will show. Having said that, I do see some glaring weaknesses regarding SD and MMA training. There are some important strengths too. I also recognize weaknesses in much of TMA, however, that isn’t inherent in TMA's; it is teacher and school dependant. I think that is less the case for MMA.

Regarding MMA training methods (IMHO):

Pro’s –

-Conditioning/Fitness

-Simplicity

-Hard contact

Those things are all positives of MMA. Most of the guys I know who are at an MMA gym are pretty fit and they get a lot of sparring and some decent hard contact. The striking they are working is pretty simple, typically basic kickboxing punches and kicks and their ground work, whatever it may be. They work the mitts, and the heavy bag and run a lot of interactive drills. That allows a fairly fast progression to a decent level of proficiency. All of these things are helpful in any fight and many TMA schools could add a lot more of this in.

Con’s –

-While the opponents are resisting, they resist within a pretty narrow set of counter-options.

-Simplicity. Many benefits here, but the lack of even a modicum of attention to many realistic SD situations is a huge weakness from my point of view. Of course we have discussed things like multiple attackers and weapons. But even more simple, just the idea that SD situations do not often start with both individuals putting up their dukes and squaring off. People get attacked from various obscure angles. It is very difficult to strike from these angles (without resetting) unless you have trained it. This seems lost on most MMA guys at our club until we have them try.

-Mindset. I see both sides of this coin. I recognize that there are many, many TMA schools out there with a failed mindset. With a worse mindset than MMA clubs. However, I have seen countless MMA guys push for takedowns, underhooks, submissions, wrist control, etc despite the fact that it put them in a very dangerous position. They don’t see it as a dangerous position, because in MMA competition, it isn’t. They don’t recognize it is flat out stupid outside of that context, and it’s an auto-response. Lots of other little things too. When I switched from boxing to arts like Kenpo/Escrima, I learned to hit with an open hand, It is absurd how much more effective this is. It’s just silly, in 85% of situations, to hit a man with a closed fist.

I have long said that if TMA (whose tactics and techniques, in my opinion, are far superior for SD than the Kickboxing/BJJ blend that makes up most of MMA) would barrow the conditioning practices of MMA, the intensity, and the level of contact (all of which are typically superior to most TMA schools) without buying into the competition mindset and the formulaic approach that competition breeds, they would be far better off.

I hear constantly about how hard MMA guys fight in their training and how no sparing etc in a TMA school is the same as competing. I’m just not sure what other schools are like I guess. We absolutely kick the dog ***** out of each other repeatedly.When we run multi-attacker drills we run them hard. When we "spar" it is hard contact and often without protection. I've been laid out and dropped in a heap, and given the same back. The AKKI is the roughest group I have been with, but when I did Tracy's Kenpo and when I worked with Skip's group, high levels of contact in sparing was very common. This aspect is likely more regular of an MMA gym, but I think that is teacher/school dependent. I wouldn't even stay for an entire class at any TMA school that didn't really bang.

Just as we consider differences between TMA schools, there is a difference between training at an MMA club (which many do) and competing (which fewer do) choosing to go another round when your covered in your own blood or injured does a lot for your psychology and is invaluable in a "real fight."

I truly believe that an individuals psychology, and the mindest they maintain, is the most important factor. How training methods affect this is a fascinating discussions.

[K-man]

Lots of other little things too. When I switched from boxing to arts like Kenpo/Escrima, I learned to hit with an open hand, It is absurd how much more effective this is. It’s just silly, in 85% of situations, to hit a man with a closed fist.
It is my understanding that, before karate went into the schools, the hands were normally open. In the schools the teachers did not want half the kids running around with broken fingers, so the hands were closed. Unfortunately, in the early days of western karate, few karateka progressed beyond the basic training and they in turn as they have become the teachers, pass on, in good faith, what they themselves were taught. Closing the hands causes muscles to tense and we slow down. Open hands, muscles relax, and speed increases. Power is a product of mass and acceleration. The faster you are, the more power in the strike. Open hands offer multiple options, especially at close range. Your figure of 85% sounds about right to me. :asian:

[Daniel Sullivan]

I am going to preface my lengthy post with this comment: I do not honestly hold to the idea that traditional martial arts are somehow inherently different than MMA. All of the techniques found in MMA are found in some traditional martial art, be it western boxing and wrestling or eastern karate and judo, or Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. And the whole competition vs. the deadly street thing is just silly. Shotokan karateka, Kyoshukin karateka, tangsudoin, taekwondoin, kendoka, etc., all these folks have their own tournaments that they are training for. The folks that are considered to be the tops are often the folks with (surprise surprise) lots of trophies. Many so-called traditional martial arts are just as sport driven as MMA is. Taekwondo most certainly is.

In short, I see them both as essentially equal.

The MMA fanboys hold up pro athletes as the example while the average guy who works out at an MMA gym is just an average guy with a day job who works out at an MMA gym.

The TMA faithful hold up masters like Bruce Lee, Ueshiba, and Mas Oyama as the example of TMA, while the average guy who works out in a dojo is just an average guy with a day job who works out in a dojo.

Both have an advantage over someone who doesn't train at all.

The only major difference that I see in terms of quality is that MMA focuses on a smaller skill set and the those who actually compete train for competition, which usually means harder training than the average MA hobbyist. The smaller skill set means greater quality of training for each technique and greater repetitions of each technique, while many TMA schools (certainly not all) seem to feel that if they don't teach everything but the kitchen sink, then there is some huge gaping hole.

Broader skill sets make for a more well rounded fighter, but a focused skill set is nearly always more effective.

The other observation is that MMA means live training with a resisting partner, whereas TMA, because TMA is really a few hundred different arts and training philosophies, will not always guarantee that.

A TMA with a narrow, functional skill set, effective weapon defense training (meaning that the guy or gal teaching it actually knows what they're doing), hard training and training with resisting partners is, in my opinion, the best option for the average person who will never compete.

An MMA program with the same weapons defenses would be equally good.

Frankly, a good hardcore TMA school is going to train like a good hardcore MMA gym, so really it is just a question of what flavor you want.

As far as the whole eye poking, throat crushing, too deadly for competition stuff, as a practitioner of three traditional martial arts, I don't want to hear it. If your basics are lousy teh deadly will not help you. If you do not keep yourself in fit-to-fight condition, teh deadly will not help you. The same basics that are effective in MMA are the same basics that a TMA class should be focusing on. When your students are top notch with the core curriculum, then show them some of the other stuff to keep them around after black belt. But having out of shape students that cannot block, kick, punch, or move effectively and trying to say that because they can eye gouge that they are somehow more prepared for "the deadly street" is ridiculous. And anyway, it isn't as if and MMA athlete couldn't figure out how to do an eye gouge with zero training for crying out loud. I knew how to do an eye gouge before I ever set foot in a martial arts studio, and that was when I was seven or eight. It is not rocket science.

Good instruction couple with correct practice, hard training, and working with resisting partners is much more important than what label you slap on your door.

My apologies for the long post.

Daniel

[Xinglu]

I think the idea that MMA guys not using gouges and other competitively banned techniques on the street is erroneous at best. Most of these guys have a good head on their shoulders and practice TMAs as well. Most of these guys would IMHO destroy assailants on the street. And just because they don't train with/against weapons for competition doesn't mean they don't train with/against weapons in there TMA outside of the gym.

To the topic, which training is better? The one that gets you and keeps you training. Martial skill is more dependent upon how the person trains and with what mindset they train then it does with where and what style they train in.

[K831]

I think the idea that MMA guys not using gouges and other competitively banned techniques on the street is erroneous at best. Most of these guys have a good head on their shoulders

Are you saying here that they will rely on congnitive function during potential life/death attack or altercation? It would seem your references to most MMA guys having a "good head on their shoulders" is inferring just that. So they will consciously choose to employ a technique they haven't trained during a fight because they have a good head on their shoulders?

I hear this all the time and I don't understand it. Sure, it is easy to say the boxer will do this and that when it happens for real...

I thought it was clear the role of nuero-muscular memory during the sympathetic nervous systems activation. It is common for most people to barely manage the most basic gross motor skill they have drilled one million times. It is virtually impossible for a person to cognitively and consciously choose to employ tactics they haven't drilled and drilled and drilled in this situation, even those as simple as turning a jab into and eye gouge, let alone all the other things training with a specific rule set in mind would ingrain. Studies show people will default to the most basic thing they have drilled. For the MMA'st, that includes closed fist strikes and the targets and tactics they have drilled.


and practice TMAs as well.

Most of the MMA guys I have met in the last 10 years scoff at TMA. Regardless, for those you mention, they combine both, and so wouldn't the point be moot?





And just because they don't train with/against weapons for competition doesn't mean they don't train with/against weapons in there TMA outside of the gym.

Agreed. But again, in a discussion comparing the two training methods separately, wouldn't this be a moot point?




To the topic, which training is better? The one that gets you and keeps you training. Martial skill is more dependent upon how the person trains and with what mindset they train then it does with where and what style they train in.

I agree completely.

Most MMA schools I am familiar with are competition oriented skills? How do you think this effects their students mindset as it pertains to SD?

[K831]

The MMA fanboys hold up pro athletes as the example while the average guy who works out at an MMA gym is just an average guy with a day job who works out at an MMA gym.

The TMA faithful hold up masters like Bruce Lee, Ueshiba, and Mas Oyama as the example of TMA, while the average guy who works out in a dojo is just an average guy with a day job who works out in a dojo.

Both have an advantage over someone who doesn't train at all.



Agreed.



The same basics that are effective in MMA are the same basics that a TMA class should be focusing on.

What basics are you referring to?

I agree to a point. There are some universal basics to be sure. However, there are some "basics" that get lost between sport fighting and SD, and I think they are very important. There are some "basics" regarding SD that I have yet to ever see addressed in the MMA training methodology.




And anyway, it isn't as if and MMA athlete couldn't figure out how to do an eye gouge with zero training for crying out loud. I knew how to do an eye gouge before I ever set foot in a martial arts studio, and that was when I was seven or eight. It is not rocket science.

I know this line of thinking will be brought up for years to come, but it is a fallacious argument.

Sure, anyone can reason out how to poke someone in the eye while standing around. That isn't really what we are training for, is it? Personally, I am training for an automatic response. A response so ingrained that it happens without my knowing it even under stress. This is outside cognitive function. It doesn't have anything to do with "figuring out" or "rocket science" or a "good head on your shoulders". It is a result of how you repeatedly drill both physically and mentally.

It's why we run our firearms course with gloves on. Do all of our drills (FTF/FTE/draw/point shooting etc) with the gloves on and under as much stress as possible. To simulate that nervous system dump.

It's no different than anything practicing and training for anything else dangerous. It "isn't rocket science" to know that if you come into a corner too fast on a street bike, that grabbing a handful of breaks will stand the bike up. Anyone with a "head on their shoulders" can remember that, right? And yet, even riders with years of experience, blow through corners and die because at 80 mph and a reducing radius corner, THEY GRAB THE BREAKS because they didn't train it... they thought "surely I can figure this out when it happens for real." There are millions of sports and activities that know this. Why the martial arts world wants to ignore it is lost on me.

[sgtmac_46]

I have to agree regarding defence against weapons. These days almost every assault I hear about contains a weapon and usually multiple attackers also and both of these situations need to be addressed to fully be "street effective". People no longer care about what is 'fair' , a couple of years ago an off duty police officer and his wife were beaten nearly to death in a suburban park by 13 people (some as young as 12) with fence pailings and left for dead not far from where I live. Preparing for a one on one fight with rules does not completely prepare someone for a real life situation in my opinion.

There is some merit to that statement, however, as one of the Gracie's was fond of pointing out......'Why are you worried about fighting multiple people, when you can't even fight one?'

The only way you're going to get an advantage over multiple attackers is with a weapon.......if anyone thinks they are training in a system that is uniquely designed to deal with multiple attackers hand to hand, they are delusional. It can be done, but only with superior speed, skill, and shear tenacity, not with some special training versus any other kind of training.

[sgtmac_46]

The TMA faithful hold up masters like Bruce Lee, Ueshiba, and Mas Oyama as the example of TMA, while the average guy who works out in a dojo is just an average guy with a day job who works out in a dojo.

Don't think Bruce Lee belongs in the defenders of traditional arts categories........much of what he was advocating was hybridized arts of the same sort that evolved in to MMA.

[sgtmac_46]

I think the idea that MMA guys not using gouges and other competitively banned techniques on the street is erroneous at best. Most of these guys have a good head on their shoulders and practice TMAs as well. Most of these guys would IMHO destroy assailants on the street. And just because they don't train with/against weapons for competition doesn't mean they don't train with/against weapons in there TMA outside of the gym.

To the topic, which training is better? The one that gets you and keeps you training. Martial skill is more dependent upon how the person trains and with what mindset they train then it does with where and what style they train in.

Exactly! Are we to believe that Bas Rutten, Pat Miletich or Fedor would somehow be easy marks on the streets because they competed in a sport that had rules? It's absurd.

Only in martial arts do we hear the argument that practicing for a thing makes you better than actually doing it. In Law Enforcement the best agencies look to race car driver's to design driving training for police officers, because race car driver's understand better than any individual on the planets the demands of driving a car at top end...........using martial artists logic race car driver's would be less qualified because Grand Prix has rules..........yet I guarantee that any Grand Prix driver can drive circles around anyone else in a car regardless of what rules they are operating under.

[K831]

Exactly! Are we to believe that Bas Rutten, Pat Miletich or Fedor would somehow be easy marks on the streets because they competed in a sport that had rules? It's absurd.

Of course not, but are we talking about the elite, or how which type of training would affect the average Joe?




Only in martial arts do we hear the argument that practicing for a thing makes you better than actually doing it. In Law Enforcement the best agencies look to race car driver's to design driving training for police officers, because race car driver's understand better than any individual on the planets the demands of driving a car at top end...........using martial artists logic race car driver's would be less qualified because Grand Prix has rules..........yet I guarantee that any Grand Prix driver can drive circles around anyone else in a car regardless of what rules they are operating under.

Would a grand Prix driver be better suited to teach a man how to drive a 4x4 rock crawling vehicle out in the desert? Or would it be be better to look to a man with that type of background?

Sure we can make huge generalities. A grand prix drive can drive circles around most so he is who we should turn to for all things driving.

Or, we could define "driving" in its context as it applies to the discussion, consider the type of vehicle etc.

That wouldn't be absurd, would it?

Do police officers carry the same kind of rigg Todd Jarrett competes with? The lack of a race gun on hand makes for some needed adjustments. I have been tought some things in IDPA that are considered by most all in combat shooting scenarios to be big NO-NO's.

[sgtmac_46]

Of course not, but are we talking about the elite, or how which type of training would affect the average Joe? We're talking about actually fighting (even with rules) versus merely training. Sparring isn't fighting, though it's better than not sparring at all. Someone who has fought, even with rules, has an advantage over someone who has never been in a fight, even if he's trained extensively. There's an advantage (a quite serious advantage) gained by actually being in a situation where another man is trying to harm you, even if within a set of rules.




Would a grand Prix driver be better suited to teach a man how to drive a 4x4 rock crawling vehicle out in the desert? Or would it be be better to look to a man with that type of background? A Grand Prix driver would be better suited to teach high performance driving to police than a police officer, or any other person driving under similar conditions.

As to YOUR question, a PROFESSIONAL COMPETITION 4x4 driver would, even though he drives 'with rules'. ;)


Sure we can make huge generalities. A grand prix drive can drive circles around most so he is who we should turn to for all things driving.

Or, we could define "driving" in its context as it applies to the discussion, consider the type of vehicle etc.

That wouldn't be absurd, would it? It would be absurd to think that the highest skill level attained would NOT be someone who drives for COMPETITION! That would be absurd.

Competition, while not completely, does proof-test concepts. What is absurd is the notion that many martial artists carry that untested THEORY trumps REALITY! And where the theory fails, the theorists begin arguing that the variables weren't exactly right.


Do police officers carry the same kind of rigg Todd Jarrett competes with? The lack of a race gun on hand makes for some needed adjustments. I have been tought some things in IDPA that are considered by most all in combat shooting scenarios to be big NO-NO's. Really? Funny thing that if you look in Iraq, you see all those fancy red-dot optics attached on every surface. I know i've got one on my patrol rifle.





Now, competition doesn't translate directly to real world, as we have to divide what works because it works in general from what works only within that limited realm..........but denying that much of what exists in MMA works because it works in general is what is truly absurd. ;)

While trying to make your point, you're really reinforcing my point.

[K831]

We're talking about actually fighting (even with rules) versus merely training. Sparring isn't fighting, though it's better than not sparring at all. Someone who has fought, even with rules, has an advantage over someone who has never been in a fight, even if he's trained extensively. There's an advantage (a quite serious advantage) gained by actually being in a situation where another man is trying to harm you, even if within a set of rules.

I think the OP's question was more about training methodology than about "fighting vs training". Have a look at the OP again.

ALso, it is a big leap to assume that a person in a TMA has never had a "real fight". Some of us have had many. By your logic, I know trump all those who have only fought for "competition". Particularly since the times someone has actually tried to harm me, there were no rules or refs to step in on behalf of my safety.

Which is why the OP asked the question about TRAINING METHODS so we could discuss the effectiveness of the methods outside of a pissing match about our "real fights".

So, back to the OP's question. How different do you think the sparring is, in an MMA class or a TMA class. I would say IT DEPENDS on the school.





A Grand Prix driver would be better suited to teach high performance driving to police than a police officer, or any other person driving under similar conditions.

As to YOUR question, a PROFESSIONAL COMPETITION 4x4 driver would, even though he drives 'with rules'. ;)

Exactly. Which is why a combative's instructor who has done it for real would likely have provide better training for a "real situation" and a competitor would provide better training for one wanting to compete.

Once the skill set is in context, it is easy to see that
similar conditions matter. How similar is competition to a real life or death encounter?



It would be absurd to think that the highest skill level attained would NOT be someone who drives for COMPETITION! That would be absurd.

Take the logic one step further. Would it be absurd to assume that a combat veteran is a safer bet than a great USPSA competitor? Seem simple to me.


Competition, while not completely, does proof-test concepts.

Sir, it proof-tests them in a controlled and pre-determined environment. Some of it may carry over, some of it may not.


What is absurd is the notion that many martial artists carry that untested THEORY trumps REALITY! And where the theory fails, the theorists begin arguing that the variables weren't exactly right.

Who is talking theory? All TMA is theory? Combatives are just theory? Krav Maga has never been tested in reality? Kenpo? Interesting notion


Really? Funny thing that if you look in Iraq, you see all those fancy red-dot optics attached on every surface. Hmmm some aimpoints and eotechs on a few guys M4's but then again, I think you know there is a lot more to a race gun than a red dot/ reflex. Aren't we talking handguns in this analogy anyways? And I've never seen an officer with a race gun.




Now, competition doesn't translate directly to real world, as we have to divide what works because it works in general from what works only within that limited realm..........

Wait, I thought it was REALITY and that TMA/combatives was untested THEORY? ;)

[Bruno@MT]

There is some merit to that statement, however, as one of the Gracie's was fond of pointing out......'Why are you worried about fighting multiple people, when you can't even fight one?'


True, but this is flawed reasoning.

I saw many of those gracie challenges, and their strategy basically boiled down to diving towards the other guy's legs / midsection (blocking or taking any kick or hit along the way) dragging him to the ground where the fight continued in their favor.

Doing this in a situation with multiple attackers will get you your head kicked in rapidly.

This is the reason why in many traditional systems you try to stay on your legs as much as possible, and why you don't attempt takedowns yourself by default. In many realistic SD and (originally) combat situations, this amounts to suicide.

[Masshiro]

they are both the same and different. the only think i can say about it realy is that if you are in a fight that lasts more than 3 seconds you are doing it wrong.

[sgtmac_46]

I think the OP's question was more about training methodology than about "fighting vs training". Have a look at the OP again.

ALso, it is a big leap to assume that a person in a TMA has never had a "real fight". Some of us have had many. By your logic, I know trump all those who have only fought for "competition". Particularly since the times someone has actually tried to harm me, there were no rules or refs to step in on behalf of my safety.

Which is why the OP asked the question about TRAINING METHODS so we could discuss the effectiveness of the methods outside of a pissing match about our "real fights".

So, back to the OP's question. How different do you think the sparring is, in an MMA class or a TMA class. I would say IT DEPENDS on the school. You miss the point entirely........the fighting itself acts as training. And having been in a fight is different than having been in several fights. IF you sharpened your skills by fighting in the street, you'd get the same kind of experience.......you'd likely also go to jail (because there ARE rules.......even in the streets. ;)) The reality is that the cage is the CLOSEST thing you can get to an actual fight without running a huge risk of getting locked up. There's no substitute for actually doing.





Exactly. Which is why a combative's instructor who has done it for real would likely have provide better training for a "real situation" and a competitor would provide better training for one wanting to compete.

Once the skill set is in context, it is easy to see that matter. How similar is competition to a real life or death encounter? How many 'combatives instructors' have been in real fights? And how many fights have they been in? The answer to both questions is 'very few and very few'. Yeah, if you go to a bar every week and pick a fight, you're going to get some real world experience very quickly........but who really does?




Take the logic one step further. Would it be absurd to assume that a combat veteran is a safer bet than a great USPSA competitor? Seem simple to me. A safer bet for what? It's much like the former statement about 'combatives instructors'.........there's a difference between being a cop or soldier in a rough area, and actually engaging in repeated combat. You can be a 'veteran' and rarely engage in direct combat. Being shot at conditions you to keep your head under fire, which is important, as mindset is of TREMENDOUS importance.........at the same time, the skills themselves, aren't necessarily superior. A USPSA competitor very likely has superior weapons handling skills.........it is only the mindset that is in question. If his mindset is solid he'll take the fight. If not, the veteran will.


Sir, it proof-tests them in a controlled and pre-determined environment. Some of it may carry over, some of it may not. Proof tested in a controlled environment TRUMPS untested theory every day of the week and twice on sunday. ;)



Who is talking theory? All TMA is theory? Combatives are just theory? Krav Maga has never been tested in reality? Kenpo? Interesting notion Have you tested yourself? In real combat, even with rules? The art isn't the issue, the artist is. Any fighter who tests himself in combat, even if there are rules, has a superior handle on the situation than one who exists only in practice and theory.



Hmmm some aimpoints and eotechs on a few guys M4's but then again, I think you know there is a lot more to a race gun than a red dot/ reflex. Aren't we talking handguns in this analogy anyways? And I've never seen an officer with a race gun. No, you're trying to specify a narrow definition that fits your argument........but the reality is that even the Modern Method of firearms shooting that we all depend on, developed by Col. Jeff Cooper and others, came from shooting competitions they had to develop it........again, this entirely REFUTES your notion that competition under rules is inferior to untested theory that claims itself about 'real combat'.

Further, aimpoints and eotechs aren't just on a 'few' M4's, they, along with ACOGS, are on nearly all police carbines, and most military carbines in combat units that allow them. That came DIRECTLY from the kind of competition you were referring to. ;)






Wait, I thought it was REALITY and that TMA/combatives was untested THEORY? ;) If that's what you thought I said, then the problem is your understanding. TMA is untested theory when it's untested. The fact that you say this shows you miss the point entirely. All MMA is TMA proof-tested in a cage, under rules, yes, but under more rigorous proof testing than most TMA practioners take it to.

That is not negated by the second part of my statement that says one must realize what works because it works (knocking someone unconscious with a left hook works as well on the street as in the cage) versus what works because it works in the cage.

Is it reality? Nope, but it's MORE reality than many who practice TMA's and dislike it are doing themselves. Again, those folks talking about how it's not real because it has rules are really whistling in the wind unless they're visiting the bar or traveling to skid-row to fight every week, they really aren't doing anything more 'realistically' but theorizing.

[sgtmac_46]

True, but this is flawed reasoning.

I saw many of those gracie challenges, and their strategy basically boiled down to diving towards the other guy's legs / midsection (blocking or taking any kick or hit along the way) dragging him to the ground where the fight continued in their favor.

Doing this in a situation with multiple attackers will get you your head kicked in rapidly.

This is the reason why in many traditional systems you try to stay on your legs as much as possible, and why you don't attempt takedowns yourself by default. In many realistic SD and (originally) combat situations, this amounts to suicide. The statement still stands.......why would someone worry about fighting more than one person, when they can't even win against one person? What's the answer to that?

Not saying that there isn't merit the other way, as i believe there is..........but if someone doesn't have an answer to the above question that doesn't involve avoiding it entirely, one doesn't have the answer.

[sgtmac_46]

they are both the same and different. the only think i can say about it realy is that if you are in a fight that lasts more than 3 seconds you are doing it wrong.

I perhaps lack your skill, but i've been in a number of real world fights that lasted longer than 3 seconds. Not every opponent is nearly as cooperative as some.

[Bruno@MT]

The statement still stands.......why would someone worry about fighting more than one person, when they can't even win against one person? What's the answer to that?

Because the worry of many TMA systems is not the person whose aim it is to take me to the ground and graple his way to a joint lock or mount position. That scenario is a result of the ruleset of BJJ / MMA.

The above statement does not pertain to fighting 1 person, but to fight 1 person who is going to do something that basically amounts to a suicide move in a majority of realistic scenarios.

In that light it is perfectly valid to worry more about 1 / many attacker scenarios where the attacker is not doing that, and not worry about the 1 person who does.

[sgtmac_46]

Because the worry of many TMA systems is not the person whose aim it is to take me to the ground and graple his way to a joint lock or mount position. That scenario is a result of the ruleset of BJJ / MMA.

The above statement does not pertain to fighting 1 person, but to fight 1 person who is going to do something that basically amounts to a suicide move in a majority of realistic scenarios.

In that light it is perfectly valid to worry more about 1 / many attacker scenarios where the attacker is not doing that, and not worry about the 1 person who does.

If the worry of many TMA systems is not the person whose aim it is to take them to the ground and grapple them in to being choked unconscious, I submit they are worrying about the wrong things.........that's not the result of the ruleset of BJJ/MMA it's the result of the way human beings are built.......hell, it's the way Chimpanzees are built and fit.........they knock each other to the ground, pound on each other, and bite each other's face and throat!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgurbo_4bqg&feature=related (apparently the chimps been watching too much MMA.......he thinks it's natural to tackle an opponent to the ground, and fight from there......silly MMA rule based monkey.....should have been working on something more 'realistic'....... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ0R1wOGx-g [/quote]

So tell me about the 'majority' of realistic attack scenarios? Do people grab ahold of each other, tumble to the ground, and then punch and kick from there?

Or do we see mass-attack situations where 5 bad guys come at the good guy one at a time, in a very orderly standup situation, ala an episode of Kung-fu?


Gracie's valid point is that if you can't out grapple and defeat one person, you're dead in the water against more than one...........because how does one avoid grappling if one doesn't know how to grapple? The best defenders against grappling and takedowns are those who are well versed in grappling and takedowns.

When faced with multiple opponents you probably better have a weapon.

[MattJ]

K831 -


Are you saying here that they will rely on congnitive function during potential life/death attack or altercation? It would seem your references to most MMA guys having a "good head on their shoulders" is inferring just that. So they will consciously choose to employ a technique they haven't trained during a fight because they have a good head on their shoulders?

I think this is something of a fallacious starting point - many MMA/BJJ folk have trained in TMA/RBSD before, so they do know about these techniques. And they have had the mental pressure of someone actually trying to submit or hit them in sparring. Not a real fight, but certainly close.


I know this line of thinking will be brought up for years to come, but it is a fallacious argument.

I don't think it is, anymore than a TMA/RBSD person claiming that they *will* be able to do a "foul" technique with proper timing and distancing, when it is impossible to practice that way.

[Brian R. VanCise]

Personally I think you need balance. Meaning in your training you need contact to desensitize yourself you also need technique training. You need extensive physical conditioning and weight bearing plus you need to focus on developing a strong mind or will. In regards to ring/cage vs. self defense on the street. Yet again if you have balance in your training then you should be in a good position to defend yourself but as always there will be no guarantees. If you are practicing the martial sciences with the goal of protecting yourself then you need balance in practice. You need to have work with weapons/tools, kicking, hand strikes, trapping hands & joint manipulation and of course extensive grappling. Now if you are only planning on stepping into the cage then you pair down what you need. Someone who is trained in MMA probably should be able to defend themselves on the street and someone who is trained hard in TMA should also be able to defend themselves. Of course that defense will boil down to their skill sets and their ability to apply them. In the end balance and hard training will take you a long way in whatever your chosen endeavor is!

[MJS]

I have to agree regarding defence against weapons. These days almost every assault I hear about contains a weapon and usually multiple attackers also and both of these situations need to be addressed to fully be "street effective". People no longer care about what is 'fair' , a couple of years ago an off duty police officer and his wife were beaten nearly to death in a suburban park by 13 people (some as young as 12) with fence pailings and left for dead not far from where I live. Preparing for a one on one fight with rules does not completely prepare someone for a real life situation in my opinion.

I think the days of the 1 on 1, empty handed fights are a thing of the past. On a side note, its sad that things like this happen, (the officer and his wife) especially when it involves kids so young.

[MJS]

You and I have posted in several of these types of threads in the past. Sometimes, my observations about MMA are taken to assume I lack the appropriate respect for them as athletes, competitors and martial artists. That isn’t the case, as many of my other posts will show. Having said that, I do see some glaring weaknesses regarding SD and MMA training. There are some important strengths too. I also recognize weaknesses in much of TMA, however, that isn’t inherent in TMA's; it is teacher and school dependant. I think that is less the case for MMA.

Regarding MMA training methods (IMHO):

Pro’s –

-Conditioning/Fitness

-Simplicity

-Hard contact

Those things are all positives of MMA. Most of the guys I know who are at an MMA gym are pretty fit and they get a lot of sparring and some decent hard contact. The striking they are working is pretty simple, typically basic kickboxing punches and kicks and their ground work, whatever it may be. They work the mitts, and the heavy bag and run a lot of interactive drills. That allows a fairly fast progression to a decent level of proficiency. All of these things are helpful in any fight and many TMA schools could add a lot more of this in.

Con’s –

-While the opponents are resisting, they resist within a pretty narrow set of counter-options.

-Simplicity. Many benefits here, but the lack of even a modicum of attention to many realistic SD situations is a huge weakness from my point of view. Of course we have discussed things like multiple attackers and weapons. But even more simple, just the idea that SD situations do not often start with both individuals putting up their dukes and squaring off. People get attacked from various obscure angles. It is very difficult to strike from these angles (without resetting) unless you have trained it. This seems lost on most MMA guys at our club until we have them try.

-Mindset. I see both sides of this coin. I recognize that there are many, many TMA schools out there with a failed mindset. With a worse mindset than MMA clubs. However, I have seen countless MMA guys push for takedowns, underhooks, submissions, wrist control, etc despite the fact that it put them in a very dangerous position. They don’t see it as a dangerous position, because in MMA competition, it isn’t. They don’t recognize it is flat out stupid outside of that context, and it’s an auto-response. Lots of other little things too. When I switched from boxing to arts like Kenpo/Escrima, I learned to hit with an open hand, It is absurd how much more effective this is. It’s just silly, in 85% of situations, to hit a man with a closed fist.

I have long said that if TMA (whose tactics and techniques, in my opinion, are far superior for SD than the Kickboxing/BJJ blend that makes up most of MMA) would barrow the conditioning practices of MMA, the intensity, and the level of contact (all of which are typically superior to most TMA schools) without buying into the competition mindset and the formulaic approach that competition breeds, they would be far better off.

I hear constantly about how hard MMA guys fight in their training and how no sparing etc in a TMA school is the same as competing. I’m just not sure what other schools are like I guess. We absolutely kick the dog ***** out of each other repeatedly.When we run multi-attacker drills we run them hard. When we "spar" it is hard contact and often without protection. I've been laid out and dropped in a heap, and given the same back. The AKKI is the roughest group I have been with, but when I did Tracy's Kenpo and when I worked with Skip's group, high levels of contact in sparing was very common. This aspect is likely more regular of an MMA gym, but I think that is teacher/school dependent. I wouldn't even stay for an entire class at any TMA school that didn't really bang.

Just as we consider differences between TMA schools, there is a difference between training at an MMA club (which many do) and competing (which fewer do) choosing to go another round when your covered in your own blood or injured does a lot for your psychology and is invaluable in a "real fight."

I truly believe that an individuals psychology, and the mindest they maintain, is the most important factor. How training methods affect this is a fascinating discussions.

Agreed. I find myself going back to the same reference point, but IMO, I think its a good one. As we saw in the Fight Quest shows, we had 2 MMA guys, who had to adapt to the TMA mindset, and more times than not, we saw that it was hard, as Jim and Doug often commented that they were having a hard time breaking out of the MMA mindset.

[MJS]

I am going to preface my lengthy post with this comment: I do not honestly hold to the idea that traditional martial arts are somehow inherently different than MMA. All of the techniques found in MMA are found in some traditional martial art, be it western boxing and wrestling or eastern karate and judo, or Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. And the whole competition vs. the deadly street thing is just silly. Shotokan karateka, Kyoshukin karateka, tangsudoin, taekwondoin, kendoka, etc., all these folks have their own tournaments that they are training for. The folks that are considered to be the tops are often the folks with (surprise surprise) lots of trophies. Many so-called traditional martial arts are just as sport driven as MMA is. Taekwondo most certainly is.

In short, I see them both as essentially equal.

I agree, and as I've said in the past, the application is different, but things are pretty much the same, as far as the punches, kicks, etc. go.


The MMA fanboys hold up pro athletes as the example while the average guy who works out at an MMA gym is just an average guy with a day job who works out at an MMA gym.

The TMA faithful hold up masters like Bruce Lee, Ueshiba, and Mas Oyama as the example of TMA, while the average guy who works out in a dojo is just an average guy with a day job who works out in a dojo.

Both have an advantage over someone who doesn't train at all.

Agreed.


The only major difference that I see in terms of quality is that MMA focuses on a smaller skill set and the those who actually compete train for competition, which usually means harder training than the average MA hobbyist. The smaller skill set means greater quality of training for each technique and greater repetitions of each technique, while many TMA schools (certainly not all) seem to feel that if they don't teach everything but the kitchen sink, then there is some huge gaping hole.

Broader skill sets make for a more well rounded fighter, but a focused skill set is nearly always more effective.

The other observation is that MMA means live training with a resisting partner, whereas TMA, because TMA is really a few hundred different arts and training philosophies, will not always guarantee that.

A TMA with a narrow, functional skill set, effective weapon defense training (meaning that the guy or gal teaching it actually knows what they're doing), hard training and training with resisting partners is, in my opinion, the best option for the average person who will never compete.

An MMA program with the same weapons defenses would be equally good.

Frankly, a good hardcore TMA school is going to train like a good hardcore MMA gym, so really it is just a question of what flavor you want.

As far as the whole eye poking, throat crushing, too deadly for competition stuff, as a practitioner of three traditional martial arts, I don't want to hear it. If your basics are lousy teh deadly will not help you. If you do not keep yourself in fit-to-fight condition, teh deadly will not help you. The same basics that are effective in MMA are the same basics that a TMA class should be focusing on. When your students are top notch with the core curriculum, then show them some of the other stuff to keep them around after black belt. But having out of shape students that cannot block, kick, punch, or move effectively and trying to say that because they can eye gouge that they are somehow more prepared for "the deadly street" is ridiculous. And anyway, it isn't as if and MMA athlete couldn't figure out how to do an eye gouge with zero training for crying out loud. I knew how to do an eye gouge before I ever set foot in a martial arts studio, and that was when I was seven or eight. It is not rocket science.

Good instruction couple with correct practice, hard training, and working with resisting partners is much more important than what label you slap on your door.

My apologies for the long post.

Daniel


I agree, there are TMA schools out there, that do train just as hard as the typical MMA gym. As for the 'deadly shots'...well, I hate hearing about that too, because as I said, while those are good tools, if thats all the person doing them, has to fall back on in their toolbox, then IMO, they need to re-eval. their training.

As far as it not being rocket science...I agree to a point, however, I still feel that your training habits will come back to haunt you, for lack of better words. Again going back to FQ, how often did we see those guys go to the ground, only to find that it was a mistake, and then openly admit that because of past training, it was hard for them to get out of that mold.

[Daniel Sullivan]

Don't think Bruce Lee belongs in the defenders of traditional arts categories........much of what he was advocating was hybridized arts of the same sort that evolved in to MMA.
I agree with you to an extent (though not entirely), though I have seen him held up by enough practitioners of one TMA or another over the years that I included him. One could just as easily substitute Chuck Norris, as he would be more appropriate.

Daniel

[MJS]

I think the idea that MMA guys not using gouges and other competitively banned techniques on the street is erroneous at best. Most of these guys have a good head on their shoulders and practice TMAs as well. Most of these guys would IMHO destroy assailants on the street. And just because they don't train with/against weapons for competition doesn't mean they don't train with/against weapons in there TMA outside of the gym.

Of course, that depends on whether or not the MMA guy trains in a TMA in addition. As another member pointed out, many MMA guys that I've talked to and read posts of theirs on forums, frown upon the TMAs. Then again, let me clarify....they frown upon most, but there are a few that are liked, ie: Kyokushin (sp) mainly due to its full contact fighting. I think alot would depend on focus. If you're heavy into competing, I'd think your focus will be on that, not working with/against weapons.


To the topic, which training is better? The one that gets you and keeps you training. Martial skill is more dependent upon how the person trains and with what mindset they train then it does with where and what style they train in.

I agree with this, however, if this holds true, then why have I read posts, not from you, in which people state that the MMA training is better?

[MJS]

There is some merit to that statement, however, as one of the Gracie's was fond of pointing out......'Why are you worried about fighting multiple people, when you can't even fight one?'

Perhaps this is said, because deep down, and because they dont want to admit it, they know that they themselves can't fight more than 1.


The only way you're going to get an advantage over multiple attackers is with a weapon.......if anyone thinks they are training in a system that is uniquely designed to deal with multiple attackers hand to hand, they are delusional. It can be done, but only with superior speed, skill, and shear tenacity, not with some special training versus any other kind of training.

Agreed. Interestingly enough, this past weekend, I was working with a group of multi man attacks. No weapons were used on either side, ie: the attackers or defenders, but the skill and tenacity was most definately there. :)

[MJS]

Exactly! Are we to believe that Bas Rutten, Pat Miletich or Fedor would somehow be easy marks on the streets because they competed in a sport that had rules? It's absurd.

As K831 stated, we're talking about the best case example. Is every 20 yo MMA fanboy on the same level as the above mentioned? Of course, I'd also say that it would depend on the situation. IIRC, wasn't there a kickboxer, who was gunned down, quite a while back, in the middle of the street?


Only in martial arts do we hear the argument that practicing for a thing makes you better than actually doing it. In Law Enforcement the best agencies look to race car driver's to design driving training for police officers, because race car driver's understand better than any individual on the planets the demands of driving a car at top end...........using martial artists logic race car driver's would be less qualified because Grand Prix has rules..........yet I guarantee that any Grand Prix driver can drive circles around anyone else in a car regardless of what rules they are operating under.

Well, I would say yes....of course, again, also saying that its important to find the person whos best suited for the goal you're trying to reach. In other words, if I want to improve my ground game, I'll look at BJJ/MMA, etc. If I want to improve my weapons game, the MMA gym will be the last place I'd go. :)

[Daniel Sullivan]

I know this line of thinking will be brought up for years to come, but it is a fallacious argument.

Sure, anyone can reason out how to poke someone in the eye while standing around. That isn't really what we are training for, is it? Personally, I am training for an automatic response. A response so ingrained that it happens without my knowing it even under stress. This is outside cognitive function. It doesn't have anything to do with "figuring out" or "rocket science" or a "good head on your shoulders". It is a result of how you repeatedly drill both physically and mentally.

It's why we run our firearms course with gloves on. Do all of our drills (FTF/FTE/draw/point shooting etc) with the gloves on and under as much stress as possible. To simulate that nervous system dump.

It's no different than anything practicing and training for anything else dangerous. It "isn't rocket science" to know that if you come into a corner too fast on a street bike, that grabbing a handful of breaks will stand the bike up. Anyone with a "head on their shoulders" can remember that, right? And yet, even riders with years of experience, blow through corners and die because at 80 mph and a reducing radius corner, THEY GRAB THE BREAKS because they didn't train it... they thought "surely I can figure this out when it happens for real." There are millions of sports and activities that know this. Why the martial arts world wants to ignore it is lost on me.
A fallacious argument? No.

People with zero formal training whatsoever perform eye gouges, eye pokes, and other "banned from MMA techniques." People have been doing eye pokes, eye gouges, and scratching at people's faces since people began deciding disputes with physical force.

Saying that you need to special training to poke a guy in the eye is like needing special training to kick someone in the crotch or bite them. And comparing it to cornering a two wheeled motor vehicle at 80 miles an hour is off base.

Plenty of kids in my school days poked at or gouged at other kids' eyes, kicked other kids in the crotch, boxed the ears, etc. all with no formal training. Not one girl in my elementary school seemed to need any training to do either one. And I seriously doubt that Mike Tyson trained to do that ear bite, yet he managed to pull it off on the fly against an opponent who was most definitely resisting and was most definitely no pushover.

Most banned techniques are banned because they strike easily injured soft tissue areas and are considered unsportsmanlike, not because they are any kind of equalizer, which is how they are often pitched in these discussions.

Daniel

[MattJ]

I agree with this, however, if this holds true, then why have I read posts, not from you, in which people state that the MMA training is better?

Because people have opinions. :)

And certainly many people have claimed TMA to be superior, too, yes? It doesn't make it a fact, either way. I think a balanced approach is best, IMHO.

[Daniel Sullivan]

What basics are you referring to?

I agree to a point. There are some universal basics to be sure. However, there are some "basics" that get lost between sport fighting and SD, and I think they are very important. There are some "basics" regarding SD that I have yet to ever see addressed in the MMA training methodology.
Well, basics such as effective blocking, striking, basic locks, throws, sweeps and take-downs (depending upon the art, the mix of these will be different).

The meat and potatoes stuff, as opposed to flying side kicks, spinning hook kicks, 360's, 540's, spinning back fists, spear hands, ridge hands, knife hands, pressure points, elaborate submissions, etc.

Not that specialized or advanced techniques should be ignored, but too often, people with poor basics progress through the curriculum and assume that because they have learned the specialized techniques, such as eye gouges or spear hands, or advanced techniques, such as spinning back hook kicks or flying side kicks, weapon defenses, etc. that they have this magical means of self defense.

Students with poor basics who move through the curriculum to learn the advanced/specialized stuff are generally poor at that as well. If you cannot do the basics of an art, whatever it is, then you have no chance of pulling off the advanced stuff in anything resembling a practical scenario.

I would rather my students have excellent basics and no advanced or specialized training than to have it all and be sloppy. Most often though, instructors move students to the advanced stuff in order to keep them interested and paying dues.

Daniel

[Tez3]

I don't believe there is such a thing as MMA or TMA training. To me it's about the way the coach/instructor teaches. We train both TMA and MMA the same way.
I'm gald Daniel brought up the subject of basics because to us that's the most important thing in any martial art, basics, basics, basics and more basics. Drill everything until it's in your bones and head.

Our classes are all basically the same, a emphasis on fitness, strong basics in whatever we are doing and loads of practice. When we are doing MMA our instructor will point out moves that can be used in self defence with slight variations and vice versa. He will say 'you've seen this move in the cage, now if you do it this way it's also effective in a 'real' fight'. We have a great emphasis on Bunkai and surprisingly a lot of that can be used for MMA. The way we teach means that MMA and TMA is much the same thing, you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference frankly.

I think what people are doing is taking the 'professional' MMA fighter and comparing him/her to a martial artist who doesn't fight for a living which is unfair. You don't compare pro boxers with amateurs even though the amateurs may be equally skilled.

My instructor has had various fights in his life, still does. His daytime job is serving warrants and his night time job is as a doorman in a very rough city. His part time job is as a close protection officer a job he did in the army. He's taught the Kiwi spec forces as well as the Dutch and ours of course. Street fights and attacks aren't unknown to him and he passes on what he knows, no 'secrets'.

when fighting for survival you don't abide by rules, your mind isn't set up like that and as Daniel rightly points out you will go for anything that works. Those who train MMA aren't stupid enough to look for a ref and cornermen when attacked and will fight back doing much the same things as anyone including a non martial artist. The survival instinct takes over.

So, to me the way you train and the way you are taught is the important thing not the label some like to put on it. In our club we are old school martial artists not MMA or TMA but fighters, even the kids.

[Daniel Sullivan]

Tez, I would love your input on this thread: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=84564

Daniel

[Tez3]

Tez, I would love your input on this thread: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=84564

Daniel

I will post a bit later have to get ready for classes now but will read first and cogitate during class!

[geezer]

Well this was one of the few threads that was worth reading from the start to fin... well at least to this point. A lot of good points have been made. Some repeatedly. Like the point Tez just reiterated that a lot of people are comparing the elite MMA pro-fighters to TMA hobbyists. It is more sensible to compare elite to elite, and hobbyist to hobbyist. One system I've trained is Wing Chun which has deservedly come under fire for making exaggerated claims, On the other hand the elite WC/WT fighters like Emin Boztepe and Victor Gutierrez do "pressure test" their system (check the clips on youtube). The same is true for most TMA. And, most of the hard-core "fighter" types I've met have trained at least bit of MMA... and respect the intensity of competitive bouts. Taking this into account, there really isn't a lot to argue about.

One thing that hasn't been dealt with too much is that really heavy contact isn't apropriate for everybody. How many folks in there 50s, 60s and beyond can physically take the punishment of MMA or Boxing? Relatively few, I'd wager. But people of all ages and physiques can benefit to some degree from toned-down training. As somebody said earlier, the martial art that you stick with the longest will do you the most good.

Now, to get better rounded-out, I guess I need to start looking around for a BJJ gym athat can teach an old geezer without breaking him up too bad.

[Tez3]

Well this was one of the few threads that was worth reading from the start to fin... well at least to this point. A lot of good points have been made. Some repeatedly. Like the point Tez just reiterated that a lot of people are comparing the elite MMA pro-fighters to TMA hobbyists. It is more sensible to compare elite to elite, and hobbyist to hobbyist. One system I've trained is Wing Chun which has deservedly come under fire for making exaggerated claims, On the other hand the elite WC/WT fighters like Emin Boztepe and Victor Gutierrez do "pressure test" their system (check the clips on youtube). The same is true for most TMA. And, most of the hard-core "fighter" types I've met have trained at least bit of MMA... and respect the intensity of competitve bouts. Taking this into account, there really isn't a lot to argue about.

One thing that hasn't been dealt with too much is that really heavy contact isn't approppriate for everybody. How many folks in there 50s, 60s and beyond can physically take the punishment of MMA or Boxing? Relatively few, I'd wager. But people of all ages and physiques can benefit to some degree from toned-down training. As somebody said earlier, the martial art that you stick with the longest will do you the most good.

Now, to get better rounded-out, I guess I need to start looking around for a BJJ gym athat can teach an old geezer without breaking him up too bad.

Nice post!
Speaking as one who is in their fifties (argh!) MMA training is a lot easier than many think, full contact is reserved for the actual competition and techniques are put on in training only until one can feel them not to the point of injury. What I find is that I'm slower than the young guys and less supple so you have to adapt techniques to make them work and leave some out altogether but that actually goes for everyone, if your legs are long/short for example there's things that won't work as well etc. That's part of the fun adapting techniques (I have to do this in TMA as well, can't kick to the head etc) to make them work and that is what you'd do for SD anyway isn't it!

[K831]

You miss the point entirely........the fighting itself acts as training. And having been in a fight is different than having been in several fights. IF you sharpened your skills by fighting in the street, you'd get the same kind of experience.......you'd likely also go to jail (because there ARE rules.......even in the streets. The reality is that the cage is the CLOSEST thing you can get to an actual fight without running a huge risk of getting locked up. There's no substitute for actually doing.
While a fight in the cage is certainly closer that having done nothing, it still isn’t really all that close. Particularly psychologically. Yes, I have done both. In fact, I’ll have to ask my wife to dig out the tape of some of my MMA bouts from the late 90’s early 2000’s. Couple are actually pretty good.
In every city I have lived, the number of assaults reported vs convicted etc is pretty high, not to mention the many that go unreported. I find it hard to believe that you really feel that slugging it out in a street fight will put you in jail immediately. Having spent (I’m not proud of this) too much of junior high, HS and college doing too much fighting I can think of only 2 times the cops showed up before it was over and everyone had dispersed.




How many 'combatives instructors' have been in real fights? And how many fights have they been in? The answer to both questions is 'very few and very few'. Yeah, if you go to a bar every week and pick a fight, you're going to get some real world experience very quickly........but who really does?
I have never trained with an instructor as an adult who doesn’t have very real experience. That is my personal preference.
However, I take your point and I am sure there are too many who are talking out there butt.






A safer bet for what? Being shot at conditions you to keep your head under fire, which is important, as mindset is of TREMENDOUS importance.........at the same time, the skills themselves, aren't necessarily superior. A USPSA competitor very likely has superior weapons handling skills.........it is only the mindset that is in question. If his mindset is solid he'll take the fight. If not, the veteran will.
A safer bet for combat, isn’t that what we are really talking about and training for? So, were I to be going into “combat” I would choose the combat veteran whose psych./mindset were proven, over the competitor with the faster tac. reload who may crap his pants and freeze when it gets real. Same thing for MMA. I have seen guys with lots of competition under their belts melt down when it was real, where did all his bravado from the ring go?




Proof tested in a controlled environment TRUMPS untested theory every day of the week and twice on sunday. ;)
I addressed this, but you seem to have missed it. I am not discussing tested in a controlled environment vs untested theory, and why you would even try to compare them as either – or, mutually exclusive options is baffling. Proof tested in real SD situations TRUMPS proof tested in a controlled environment every day of the week and twice on Sunday.


Have you tested yourself? In real combat, even with rules? The art isn't the issue, the artist is. Any fighter who tests himself in combat, even if there are rules, has a superior handle on the situation than one who exists only in practice and theory. ;)
Yes I have, in both. And I agree, a fighter who tests himself in a competitive situation gains something on one who doesn’t. What I still don’t understand is why you assume that if someone hasn’t competed in MMA then by default they have only theory and have never tested anything? That just isn’t so.



No, you're trying to specify a narrow definition that fits your argument........but the reality is that even the Modern Method of firearms shooting that we all depend on, developed by Col. Jeff Cooper and others, came from shooting competitions they had to develop it........again, this entirely REFUTES your notion that competition under rules is inferior to untested theory that claims itself about 'real combat'. ;)

No, I am trying to keep the conversation in context, and away from these huge generalities, like all competition acts as a “proof” and no one can test anything anywhere else so it must just be theory.
You citing Col. Jeff Cooper does nothing to refute my argument. Col. Jeff Cooper served as a Marine in both WWII and the Korean war. Weren’t most of his thoughts were born of combat, including his color code? I hardly think that degree of situational awareness and understanding came from gamming and race guns. Regardless, that is exactly why the IDPA was formed, USPSA was too “competition oriented” and they saw the fault in that for anyone who wanted their skills to more adequately cross over from competition to real shooting. That is the whole premise of the organization, and it speaks to my point.

aimpoints and eotechs aren't just on a 'few' M4's, they, along with ACOGS, are on nearly all police carbines, and most military carbines in combat units that allow them. That came DIRECTLY from the kind of competition you were referring to. ;)
C’mon stgmac… why cherry pick? No one ever said that nothing from MMA could carry over into SD and combative situations. Hardly. What has been said by myself and others is that there are also many things that should not carry over and are glaring weaknesses in a SD situations. The same is the case with shooting competitions. You are for some reason choosing to only look at red dots. Awesome, they work great in many SD situations. Flaws were found though, and the idea of BUIS and co-witness applications came about. If were are going to do this comparison, why don’t you mention all race gun aspects and not just cherry pick the one that works in some combat applications?
What about "skeletonizing" and reduced-weight recoil springs that allow the use of "squib loads". Now that would be flat out suicide on the battlefield, and yet, it is “proof tested” in the competitions to achieve faster follow up shots. By your logic, we should get squib loads into the hands of all marines. Same as taking a proven MMA tactic (take a striker to the ground ASAP) and applying it to the street. It’s suicide.




TMA is untested theory when it's untested.
Sure, by I am not operating from an untested paradigm. Why everyone assumes that people in a TMA are untested is beyond me. Whatever the reason is, it isn’t true. I am as hard on TMA’ists who fit that category as I am on MMA’ist who can’t see the dangers in taking many ideas that work in the rings and just assuming because they work there they work in the street. Both are silly and fooling themselves.
I have not allowed my TMA/combatives training to go untested. As I said before, the level of conditioning and contact is typically superior in MMA. The methodologies of TMA in terms of tactics are superior for SD. Those in a system like Krav, who actually train for SD and all its considerations while maintain a high level fitness and heavy contact, force on force etc are far better suited for SD than a competitor. The same applies to any TMA in that context.

As always stgmac, I appreciate the discussion.

[K831]

A fallacious argument? No.

People with zero formal training whatsoever perform eye gouges, eye pokes, and other "banned from MMA techniques." People have been doing eye pokes, eye gouges, and scratching at people's faces since people began deciding disputes with physical force.


Daniel

People with zero formal training whatsoever perform jabs, crosses, takedowns, mounts, chokes, round kicks, bobs and weaves, knife slashes, stabs etc.

I suppose then, since someone with zero trainging can do it, since a six year old can do it, I should not only drop my practice of faster, more accurate, un-telegraphed eye strikes, I should drop all my boxing work, kicks, my excrima knife work and my wrestling, since school yard kids and the un-trained can and have executed everything we see in MMA and TMA, to one degree or another.

If you really someone with zero formal training can perform an eye strike or any other "banned from MMA technique" with the efficiency, speed, accuracy, consistency as someone who trains it every day, then I just don't know how to move forward in a discussion with you.

I don't think you believe that, which is why I find your citing it a bit disingenuous.

I have a rising handsword to the throat that is faster by far than any boxer I have ever worked with. His jab may well be better. Why? Because of the strikes we each spend time working. Which is better outside the ring? Open handed strike to the throat, or a closed fist jab to the throat?

I guess I find nuance to be more important that most.

[K831]

K831 -



I think this is something of a fallacious starting point - many MMA/BJJ folk have trained in TMA/RBSD before, so they do know about these techniques.

Again, when comparing the two training methodologies separately, those who have done both are moot point!

Every time a strength for MMA is mentioned, it is fair game to assume that the TMA'ist could have never replicated that strength in his own training? However, every strength presented for the TMA methodology is met with "well, many MMA/BJJ folks do both". LOL and why do they? Because the MMA/BJJ methodology on its own lacked that component? Isn't that what we are discussing? The strengths and weaknesses of each, individually and separate?

[Tez3]

Again, when comparing the two training methodologies separately, those who have done both are moot point!

Every time a strength for MMA is mentioned, it is fair game to assume that the TMA'ist could have never replicated that strength in his own training? However, every strength presented for the TMA methodology is met with "well, many MMA/BJJ folks do both". LOL and why do they? Because the MMA/BJJ methodology on its own lacked that component? Isn't that what we are discussing? The strengths and weaknesses of each, individually and separate?

No it's turning into an MMA v TMA thread.

When will people understand that all are martial artists? We do what suits our strengths, build, temperment etc. Why this endless bickering?

[K831]

Well, basics such as effective blocking, striking, basic locks, throws, sweeps and take-downs (depending upon the art, the mix of these will be different).

The meat and potatoes stuff, as opposed to flying side kicks, spinning hook kicks, 360's, 540's, spinning back fists, spear hands, ridge hands, knife hands, pressure points, elaborate submissions, etc.
I would rather my students have excellent basics and no advanced or specialized training than to have it all and be sloppy. Most often though, instructors move students to the advanced stuff in order to keep them interested and paying dues.

I agree completely, with the exception that I do not consider open handed techniques to be anything other than core basics and “meat and potatoes.”

Otherwise, yes, a student with strong basics is far better off than a student with a gamut of techniques that are all sloppy.






I would rather my students have excellent basics and no advanced or specialized training than to have it all and be sloppy. Most often though, instructors move students to the advanced stuff in order to keep them interested and paying dues.

Daniel

Again, I agree completely.

Here is an example of the distinction I was making between MMA “basics” and a more TMA/SD oriented set of “basics”.
The Escrima guys I am currently working with look at everything from the point of view that your attacker will likely produce an edged or impact weapon.

Every set of “basic” strikes, blocks, parries, footwork etc is evaluated through that lens and from that context. It changes the how some “meat and potatoes” basics are practiced and applied.

This is not the case in any MMA school I have ever been in, and yet, I think the escrima guys present a superior methodology for SD, and yet we are only discussing “basics”.

Conversely, the early focus on drilling basics (heavy bag, mitts etc) and early sparring and contact found in MMA gyms is something that should be used to fundamentally change the training approach of most all TMA's.

[K831]

Again, when comparing the two training methodologies separately, those who have done both are moot point!

Every time a strength for MMA is mentioned, it is fair game to assume that the TMA'ist could have never replicated that strength in his own training? However, every strength presented for the TMA methodology is met with "well, many MMA/BJJ folks do both". LOL and why do they? Because the MMA/BJJ methodology on its own lacked that component? Isn't that what we are discussing? The strengths and weaknesses of each, individually and separate?

No it's turning into an MMA v TMA thread.

When will people understand that all are martial artists? We do what suits our strengths, build, temperment etc. Why this endless bickering?

That's what I was driving at. I haven't yet figured out how to point out perceived failings of MMA methods without getting a knee-jerk reaction. I have better luck pointing out the failings of some of TMA's approach. Maybe because it is much older and some of the people involved aren't floating on air with it as much?

Bickering is no good, discussing is great! :) I do think a discussion of strengths, weakness and differences in training methodologies is worthwhile. That analysis is part of how I came to my current hybrid training methodology.

It works with everything. Body building vs plyometrics vs HIIT vs olympic lifting = a nice hybrid workout program!! :)

[MJS]

We're talking about actually fighting (even with rules) versus merely training. Sparring isn't fighting, though it's better than not sparring at all. Someone who has fought, even with rules, has an advantage over someone who has never been in a fight, even if he's trained extensively. There's an advantage (a quite serious advantage) gained by actually being in a situation where another man is trying to harm you, even if within a set of rules.

I agree to a point, however, sparring alone, with no other RW type training, isn't going to have as much as an advantage as one would think.

[Nolerama]

I think aliveness is the key.

It's not about hard contact per se. It's about being able to incorporate what you're drilling in class in an athletic contest.

All altercations are athletic contests.

The MA applied is the strategy.

You tell a student how to do X-technique in a dead pattern drill for years and they'll know how to do it eventually. Exactly the way you taught said student.

The X-factors within an altercation (from sparring to SD) will probably interfere with the "perfection" of that tech's execution. The opponent is too close. The opponent changed levels. The opponent pulled a knife. It doesn't matter. While the student might have the right idea of using X-technique in an altercation, they're trained to shoot the bullseye instead of the overall target. Once X-tech fails another X-factor is introduced: frustration, which we all know is not a good thing to have in an altercation.

Now, you introduce X-technique in isolation (even start with a dead pattern drill), and then "spar" using that technique with progressive resistance (this is why communication between training partners is key) you introduce a level of aliveness that sensitizes the student to many of the X-factors that might occur during an altercation. A good teacher might introduce X-factors in him/herself (I like to play w/ a trainer knife in grappling situations some times).

This can apply to all MAs, and many MA instructors get this concept. Yes, the dead pattern drills look really cool, and are part of the "art" and should be learned if you're learning an art, but in terms of function and applicability, aliveness must be introduced to the training regimen on a regular basis.

One might argue about training eye gouges, groin kicks, and other "dirty tricks", but a huge tenant within ALL MAs is Position Before Submission. You'll find that stuff when you're in the proper positioning, and definitely not from a disadvantageous one. Besides, going for an eye gouge with an opponent who has side control, with your back to him is probably going to escalate the situation (pull out a knife, gun, bring another person into the fight) instead of dropping him to the ground.

There's no difference between TMA and MMA training (I definitely agree with Tez on that), but there's definitely a difference between training from coach to coach, instructor to instructor.

You can be book smart, but never apply that. The same thing goes for MAs.

[MattJ]

Again, when comparing the two training methodologies separately, those who have done both are moot point!

?????????

Then why did you bring it up? You are the one claiming that boxers and MMA people will not know/forget to use non-sporting techniques. You are invalidating your own argument.


Every time a strength for MMA is mentioned, it is fair game to assume that the TMA'ist could have never replicated that strength in his own training? However, every strength presented for the TMA methodology is met with "well, many MMA/BJJ folks do both". LOL and why do they?

Because TMA/RBSD was far more prevalent than MMA before 1993, and probably still is?


Because the MMA/BJJ methodology on its own lacked that component? Isn't that what we are discussing? The strengths and weaknesses of each, individually and separate?

See above. I am not strictly discussing the arts in a vacuum, seeing as actual people practice them, bringing with them various levels of experience. You have used the same line of reasoning yourself in 'defending' TMA/RBSD by noting that some of 'them' have had real fights, competed in MMA, etc. Those experiences count, I'm assuming? It works both ways.

[MJS]

If the worry of many TMA systems is not the person whose aim it is to take them to the ground and grapple them in to being choked unconscious, I submit they are worrying about the wrong things.........that's not the result of the ruleset of BJJ/MMA it's the result of the way human beings are built.......hell, it's the way Chimpanzees are built and fit.........they knock each other to the ground, pound on each other, and bite each other's face and throat!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgurbo_4bqg&feature=related (apparently the chimps been watching too much MMA.......he thinks it's natural to tackle an opponent to the ground, and fight from there......silly MMA rule based monkey.....should have been working on something more 'realistic'....... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ0R1wOGx-g

So tell me about the 'majority' of realistic attack scenarios? Do people grab ahold of each other, tumble to the ground, and then punch and kick from there?

Or do we see mass-attack situations where 5 bad guys come at the good guy one at a time, in a very orderly standup situation, ala an episode of Kung-fu?


Gracie's valid point is that if you can't out grapple and defeat one person, you're dead in the water against more than one...........because how does one avoid grappling if one doesn't know how to grapple? The best defenders against grappling and takedowns are those who are well versed in grappling and takedowns.

When faced with multiple opponents you probably better have a weapon.

So, if I'm reading this right, it sounds like you're basing this on the Gracie 90% rule then. On the flip side, you have those people that say that not all fights go to the ground.

So let me ask you this....just playing devils advocate here for a moment. If we take what you claim the Graices point is....that if you can't grapple and defeat 1 person, how can you defend against more than 1, then technically, I think its safe to say that Gracie has proven that they can do just what you claim...take someone to the ground, outgrapple them and win. So if they can do that, what is their method of dealing with more than 1? Its clear that they are capable of beating 1, using the rule set that they have in play.

[MJS]

Because people have opinions. :)

And certainly many people have claimed TMA to be superior, too, yes? It doesn't make it a fact, either way. I think a balanced approach is best, IMHO.

You do realize that I was replying to the part of his post in which he said:

"To the topic, which training is better? The one that gets you and keeps you training. Martial skill is more dependent upon how the person trains and with what mindset they train then it does with where and what style they train in."

I'm fully aware that both camps claim to be the best, have the best methods, etc., so you're not telling me anything new. I was simply looking to discuss the methods of both and if one really is better than the other. :)

[K831]

?????????

Then why did you bring it up? You are the one claiming that boxers and MMA people will not know/forget to use non-sporting techniques. You are invalidating your own argument.

I honestly don't know what you're talking bout here. You have a knack for coming out of left field.

I did not bring up people who do both in defense of anything. I mentioned that someone who only trains in boxing, or only trains in grappling, or only trains for a specific rule set, isn't going to have neuro-muscular memory sufficient to ract under stress with a technique he hasn't drilled, simply because it would be a better SD technique.

Your response to that was "Lots of MMA guy also do TMA so they have those techniques" to which I responded, "then it is a moot point" the op asked for a discussion comparing methodologies separately, not as one.

Now you are saying I invalidated my own argument by comparing them as one? Ok.....


[/quote]

[MattJ]

My bad. You had mentioned TMA/RBSD folk who had competed MMA, been in real fights, etc. Seemed to invalidate your own argument disallowing MMA people that had other experience as well.

[MJS]

You miss the point entirely........the fighting itself acts as training. And having been in a fight is different than having been in several fights. IF you sharpened your skills by fighting in the street, you'd get the same kind of experience.......you'd likely also go to jail (because there ARE rules.......even in the streets. ;)) The reality is that the cage is the CLOSEST thing you can get to an actual fight without running a huge risk of getting locked up. There's no substitute for actually doing.

I beg to differ.




How many 'combatives instructors' have been in real fights? And how many fights have they been in? The answer to both questions is 'very few and very few'. Yeah, if you go to a bar every week and pick a fight, you're going to get some real world experience very quickly........but who really does?

Many of the people I currently train with, have or still do, work in environments, in which their skills have saved their tails. I'm sure however, there're some that would not fit that category though.




Proof tested in a controlled environment TRUMPS untested theory every day of the week and twice on sunday. ;)

To a point maybe, but all the time...I'd have to say no. Ex: You have an officer training scenarios in a firearms training simulator, ie: a controlled environment. They're testing themselves. If a mistake is made, the officer is not really going to die.

An officer faces himself in a live fire situation. There is no room for mistakes, as 1 mistake could mean the end of his life.

Apply the ring theory to the RW and the same setting as I just described with the officer, applies.


Have you tested yourself? In real combat, even with rules? The art isn't the issue, the artist is. Any fighter who tests himself in combat, even if there are rules, has a superior handle on the situation than one who exists only in practice and theory.

I agree that it is the person, not the art. I've said this many times as well....any art has the potential to work, its how its trained that matters. :)

Out of curiosity, seeing that you're obviously more in favor of the MMA methods, and thats fine, as this is what I was looking to discuss, but how do you gear your training?

[MJS]

Again, when comparing the two training methodologies separately, those who have done both are moot point!

Every time a strength for MMA is mentioned, it is fair game to assume that the TMA'ist could have never replicated that strength in his own training? However, every strength presented for the TMA methodology is met with "well, many MMA/BJJ folks do both". LOL and why do they? Because the MMA/BJJ methodology on its own lacked that component? Isn't that what we are discussing? The strengths and weaknesses of each, individually and separate?

No it's turning into an MMA v TMA thread.

When will people understand that all are martial artists? We do what suits our strengths, build, temperment etc. Why this endless bickering?

And the members have the ability to control the direction of the thread. I gave the outline of what I wanted from this thread. Drift will most likely always happens, as it usually does in other threads too. Again, I'm simply looking at the comparison of how each group trains, because while there are similarities in strikes, kicks, etc., the methods of execution, hense, how they're trained, training methods, is different. :)

[K831]

My bad. You had mentioned TMA/RBSD folk who had competed MMA, been in real fights, etc. Seemed to invalidate your own argument disallowing MMA people that had other experience as well.

I think we are just getting our wires crossed. Yes, many have both experiences and I agree with your summation there. However, in discussing the OP's original question, I think we need to look at them separately, then we can see the strengths and weaknesses of both MMA and TMA training methodologies as they stand on their own.

[Nolerama]

I think we are just getting our wires crossed. Yes, many have both experiences and I agree with your summation there. However, in discussing the OP's original question, I think we need to look at them separately, then we can see the strengths and weaknesses of both MMA and TMA training methodologies as they stand on their own.

Unless you could lay out each methodology in terms of philosophy, cross-reference technique and cite examples, making broad generalizations like that would sound like they were based in assumption and personal inflection and not real experience.

[MJS]

While a fight in the cage is certainly closer that having done nothing, it still isn’t really all that close. Particularly psychologically. Yes, I have done both. In fact, I’ll have to ask my wife to dig out the tape of some of my MMA bouts from the late 90’s early 2000’s. Couple are actually pretty good.
In every city I have lived, the number of assaults reported vs convicted etc is pretty high, not to mention the many that go unreported. I find it hard to believe that you really feel that slugging it out in a street fight will put you in jail immediately. Having spent (I’m not proud of this) too much of junior high, HS and college doing too much fighting I can think of only 2 times the cops showed up before it was over and everyone had dispersed.

Agreed.





I have never trained with an instructor as an adult who doesn’t have very real experience. That is my personal preference.
However, I take your point and I am sure there are too many who are talking out there butt.

Likewise. :)







A safer bet for combat, isn’t that what we are really talking about and training for? So, were I to be going into “combat” I would choose the combat veteran whose psych./mindset were proven, over the competitor with the faster tac. reload who may crap his pants and freeze when it gets real. Same thing for MMA. I have seen guys with lots of competition under their belts melt down when it was real, where did all his bravado from the ring go?

Agreed. So, I suppose, both methods have their pluses, as I said, but depending on the goal of the person.....the appropriate method should be used IMO.





I addressed this, but you seem to have missed it. I am not discussing tested in a controlled environment vs untested theory, and why you would even try to compare them as either – or, mutually exclusive options is baffling. Proof tested in real SD situations TRUMPS proof tested in a controlled environment every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Agreed. Many of the people who I train with, are still around to teach and tell the stories of what happened, so something obviously worked. :)



Yes I have, in both. And I agree, a fighter who tests himself in a competitive situation gains something on one who doesn’t. What I still don’t understand is why you assume that if someone hasn’t competed in MMA then by default they have only theory and have never tested anything? That just isn’t so.

Agreed again.





No, I am trying to keep the conversation in context, and away from these huge generalities, like all competition acts as a “proof” and no one can test anything anywhere else so it must just be theory.
You citing Col. Jeff Cooper does nothing to refute my argument. Col. Jeff Cooper served as a Marine in both WWII and the Korean war. Weren’t most of his thoughts were born of combat, including his color code? I hardly think that degree of situational awareness and understanding came from gamming and race guns. Regardless, that is exactly why the IDPA was formed, USPSA was too “competition oriented” and they saw the fault in that for anyone who wanted their skills to more adequately cross over from competition to real shooting. That is the whole premise of the organization, and it speaks to my point.

This is what I dislike....the comments that make the claim that "If it works in the ring, it'll work in the street."


C’mon stgmac… why cherry pick? No one ever said that nothing from MMA could carry over into SD and combative situations. Hardly. What has been said by myself and others is that there are also many things that should not carry over and are glaring weaknesses in a SD situations. The same is the case with shooting competitions. You are for some reason choosing to only look at red dots. Awesome, they work great in many SD situations. Flaws were found though, and the idea of BUIS and co-witness applications came about. If were are going to do this comparison, why don’t you mention all race gun aspects and not just cherry pick the one that works in some combat applications?
What about "skeletonizing" and reduced-weight recoil springs that allow the use of "squib loads". Now that would be flat out suicide on the battlefield, and yet, it is “proof tested” in the competitions to achieve faster follow up shots. By your logic, we should get squib loads into the hands of all marines. Same as taking a proven MMA tactic (take a striker to the ground ASAP) and applying it to the street. It’s suicide.

Thus the reason why I always say that both MMA and TMA should look at each other and reap the benefits from oneanother.





Sure, by I am not operating from an untested paradigm. Why everyone assumes that people in a TMA are untested is beyond me. Whatever the reason is, it isn’t true. I am as hard on TMA’ists who fit that category as I am on MMA’ist who can’t see the dangers in taking many ideas that work in the rings and just assuming because they work there they work in the street. Both are silly and fooling themselves.
I have not allowed my TMA/combatives training to go untested. As I said before, the level of conditioning and contact is typically superior in MMA. The methodologies of TMA in terms of tactics are superior for SD. Those in a system like Krav, who actually train for SD and all its considerations while maintain a high level fitness and heavy contact, force on force etc are far better suited for SD than a competitor. The same applies to any TMA in that context.

Not sure how people can think that ALL TMA claims are untested. Is it because there're no tapes of recorded fights? No 'records', as if thats the deciding factor.

[Daniel Sullivan]

Again, I'm simply looking at the comparison of how each group trains, because while there are similarities in strikes, kicks, etc., the methods of execution, hense, how they're trained, training methods, is different. :)
In all honesty, this is not a realistic comparison. TMA is a large, amorphous term that includes weapon arts, dedicated grappling arts, dedicated striking arts, internal arts, hybrid arts, arts that are essentially about preserving an ancient tradition, arts that are dedicated to sport and competition, arts that really are ancient and arts that are younger than I am.

By nature, you will have training methods in TMA that will run the gamut from highly physical and realistic to highly physical preparation for competition to highly physical for good cardio and fitness to mildly physical but very realistic to hardly physical at all.

By contrast, because MMA is geared around a fairly uniform set of rules, a limited choice of settings (octagon or cage), and geared towards athleticism (helpful for a tournament fight of any art), the training methods will be more uniform and defined.

Some TMAs will train the same way as MMA fighters do. Some will not. The comparison cannot be made without a specific art or specific group being used instead of just "TMA". Even some subgroups would be too broad for a direct comparison. After all, aren't there like a hundred different ryu's of karate with numerous training philosophies and skill sets?

MMA vs. Taekwondo is a comparison that can be made: both have a sportive element for one. There are different varieties of taekwondoists, but there are not so many as to make direct comparison impossible,and there are different varieties of MMA athletes too, I am sure, but not that many that a direct comparison becomes impossible.

Not knocking your thread, by the way; I just find the effort to compare MMA, a fairly narrow (near as I can tell) category to TMA, a category so broad as to include almost anything, to be unworkable.

Daniel

[MJS]

In all honesty, this is not a realistic comparison. TMA is a large, amorphous term that includes weapon arts, dedicated grappling arts, dedicated striking arts, internal arts, hybrid arts, arts that are essentially about preserving an ancient tradition, arts that are dedicated to sport and competition, arts that really are ancient and arts that are younger than I am.

By nature, you will have training methods in TMA that will run the gamut from highly physical and realistic to highly physical preparation for competition to highly physical for good cardio and fitness to mildly physical but very realistic to hardly physical at all.

By contrast, because MMA is geared around a fairly uniform set of rules, a limited choice of settings (octagon or cage), and geared towards athleticism (helpful for a tournament fight of any art), the training methods will be more uniform and defined.

Some TMAs will train the same way as MMA fighters do. Some will not. The comparison cannot be made without a specific art or specific group being used instead of just "TMA". Even some subgroups would be too broad for a direct comparison. After all, aren't there like a hundred different ryu's of karate with numerous training philosophies and skill sets?

MMA vs. Taekwondo is a comparison that can be made: both have a sportive element for one. There are different varieties of taekwondoists, but there are not so many as to make direct comparison impossible,and there are different varieties of MMA athletes too, I am sure, but not that many that a direct comparison becomes impossible.

Not knocking your thread, by the way; I just find the effort to compare MMA, a fairly narrow (near as I can tell) category to TMA, a category so broad as to include almost anything, to be unworkable.

Daniel

I was actually responding to what Tez stated. She said, if I'm reading correctly, that she trains both, the same way. The typical things that we'll see in a MMA fight, ie: a front kick/push kick, a roundhouse kick, a jab, cross, hook, uppercut, the basic hand and foot techniques, are all found in pretty much every art out there. However, the way that they're thrown will vary. I highly doubt I kick the way a TKD person would, and the same would go for Muay Thai, yet, the kicks are relatively the same, but the way I kick, vs. TKD, vs. MT, will vary.

I breakdown the 2 this way:

MMA: What we see in the cage. Anyone who trains for the ring, amature competition or pro events.

TMA: I lump everyone else into this group. TKD, Shotokan, Goju, Kenpo, etc. While those arts do compete, usually in a tournament setting, point sparring, etc., while those arts and some of their practitioners, may add in (such as myself :)) things from MMA, ie: grappling, conditioning, etc., their focus is not the same as what you'd see of a MMAist.

So yes, the TMA person will focus on a number of things, ie: weapons, kata, SD, etc., the MMA skill set is smaller. Smaller meaning, they are not focusing on weapons, kata or things of that nature, because it doesnt fit in with their goals. Nothing wrong with that, as I'm simply just trying to seperate the 2.

Hope that clarified. :)

[Xinglu]

I agree with this, however, if this holds true, then why have I read posts, not from you, in which people state that the MMA training is better? There is no accounting for ignorant statements. On either side of the discussion ;)


As K831 stated, we're talking about the best case example. Is every 20 yo MMA fanboy on the same level as the above mentioned? Of course, I'd also say that it would depend on the situation. IIRC, wasn't there a kickboxer, who was gunned down, quite a while back, in the middle of the street? You're in fantasy land if you think that good TMA guys haven't been gunned down. Furthermore, you're in fantasy land if you think there is anything your TMA can do for you against a gun anywhere past a meter (and I'm being generous, in my direct experience, most can't pull it off even at a meter away). I have an open challenge to anyone, let's load up an air soft gun (or paintball) and I'll prove to you that mid to long range gun defense techniques are nothing more then a fantasy requiring more luck than skill to pull off.



This is what I dislike....the comments that make the claim that "If it works in the ring, it'll work in the street." Just like "If it works in the Dojo it will work on the street" The answer to both is: Some times it will and sometimes it won't. It is about the individual and the situation at that point.

People seem to be forgetting that MMA is MIXED MAs, one fighters mixture may be different from another's... the focus is on blending them into one useable package. It could be Xingyi/Judo/BJJ/and boxing, or it could be kenpo/wrestling, or even WC/Sanda/and JJJ. Even in these big MMA gyms, you're getting bits and pieces of many TMAs.

I see MMA as the competitive evolution of what Bruce Lee started (and unfortunately never had the opportunity to complete or refine). I would bet solid money that he would be a supporter of what MMA has done for the MA community.

Having trained in several TMAs myself, I find my personal fighting style to be a blend. Although I do Kenpo, I do not fight like a Kenpoka. I do Neijia, yet I am not entirely a Neijia fighter. I have recently taken up BJJ, but I'm not entirely a BJJ player. I don't think the way most in those arts do, nor do I want to. I am influenced by each but not defined by each.

I also want to address something someone on here said (I can't remember who and I don't want to post twice: some one said or implied that The Gracies couldn't take on multiple opponents which further implies that BJJ cannot be applied in a multiple attacker situation.

I have a buddy of mine from the Army, we were mugged (or they attempted) one night. At the time my only MA experience was Kenpo and a little Xingyi, he was a BJJ player all the way. There were five of them two of us I took out two of the guys and he took out three. He never once went to the ground, but he applied his BJJ while standing! He achieved by positioning (much like aikido) and using quick high percentage movements.

So having had this experience, I always think ":rolleyes:yeah okay, not a practical SD system" It is all about how YOU train and what YOUR mindset is, even if your school/gym/dojo doesn't train it, there is no reason you can't do it on your own or after class! -OR- find a place that does!

[MJS]

There is no accounting for ignorant statements. On either side of the discussion ;)

You're in fantasy land if you think that good TMA guys haven't been gunned down. Furthermore, you're in fantasy land if you think there is anything your TMA can do for you against a gun anywhere past a meter (and I'm being generous, in my direct experience, most can't pull it off even at a meter away). I have an open challenge to anyone, let's load up an air soft gun (or paintball) and I'll prove to you that mid to long range gun defense techniques are nothing more then a fantasy requiring more luck than skill to pull off.

LOL, I find it funny, because I think you're misunderstanding my posts here. Please, show me where I said that a TMA student would not get shot? Show me where I said or made a claim that I was an expert in gun disarms? If you read what I was replying to, rather than making assumptions, you'd have seen that I was replying to the statement SgtMac made here (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1264484&postcount=30). I got the distinct impression from that post, that he was basically saying that those mentioned folks, would always come out on top. Also, as I've said many times, at least there are some quality disarms out there, that will offer something. I'd rather have that, than nothing at all. *edit* For clarification, I do agree, that past arms reach, you're pretty much up the creek. Within arms reach...yes, IMO, you do stand a good chance of getting control or a disarm.



Just like "If it works in the Dojo it will work on the street" The answer to both is: Some times it will and sometimes it won't. It is about the individual and the situation at that point.

Oh no, there ya go again, painting me with that same brush. :D. Seriously though....if you've really taken the time to read any of my posts, you'd have seen that when it comes to people making claims that things will definately work, I'm the first to say that I dont care whether it works for them, I want to make sure it works for ME, and I"M the one doing it.


People seem to be forgetting that MMA is MIXED MAs, one fighters mixture may be different from another's... the focus is on blending them into one useable package. It could be Xingyi/Judo/BJJ/and boxing, or it could be kenpo/wrestling, or even WC/Sanda/and JJJ. Even in these big MMA gyms, you're getting bits and pieces of many TMAs.

Whos forgetting? I know I'm not. :D. I agree with this, said it many times. I've said that while things from TMA are in MMA, the application is whats different.


I see MMA as the competitive evolution of what Bruce Lee started (and unfortunately never had the opportunity to complete or refine). I would bet solid money that he would be a supporter of what MMA has done for the MA community.

I agree.


Having trained in several TMAs myself, I find my personal fighting style to be a blend. Although I do Kenpo, I do not fight like a Kenpoka. I do Neijia, yet I am not entirely a Neijia fighter. I have recently taken up BJJ, but I'm not entirely a BJJ player. I don't think the way most in those arts do, nor do I want to. I am influenced by each but not defined by each.

Kenpo, Arnis, BJJ...those are the 3 that I train, those are the 3 that I feel blend very well for me. :) I dont mix them to make up my own style, but after training the Kenpo and Arnis for as long as I have, when I'm running thru techs., sometimes it just happens. I'm not thinking, "I'm going to do this or that." again, it just happens. :)


I also want to address something someone on here said (I can't remember who and I don't want to post twice: some one said or implied that The Gracies couldn't take on multiple opponents which further implies that BJJ cannot be applied in a multiple attacker situation.

I have a buddy of mine from the Army, we were mugged (or they attempted) one night. At the time my only MA experience was Kenpo and a little Xingyi, he was a BJJ player all the way. There were five of them two of us I took out two of the guys and he took out three. He never once went to the ground, but he applied his BJJ while standing! He achieved by positioning (much like aikido) and using quick high percentage movements.

It was probably me that made that comment, but anyways.....yup, I've said that many times as well...that some BJJ techs., with slight modification, can be applied while standing. Sure, I see nothing wrong with doing that, using 1 person as a momentary shield against someone else, etc.


So having had this experience, I always think ":rolleyes:yeah okay, not a practical SD system" It is all about how YOU train and what YOUR mindset is, even if your school/gym/dojo doesn't train it, there is no reason you can't do it on your own or after class! -OR- find a place that does!

Agreed. Again, I've said the same thing. Guess the big difference is, are people willing to take on that task? Are they willing to go that extra step? If so, great, then yes, I'd be much more inclined to say that those people would stand a better chance. But if you dont, then no, I stand by what I've said before.

[Brian R. VanCise]

Just food for thought though that there is a whole core of BJJ techniques that are stand up self defense. Royce has an excellent book on it as well as I believe quite a bit is covered in Helio Gracies Master Text. However, unfortunately many of these techniques are not being taught in many BJJ academies at this point like they used to be. :(

[Xinglu]

LOL, I find it funny, because I think you're misunderstanding my posts here. Please, show me where I said that a TMA student would not get shot? Show me where I said or made a claim that I was an expert in gun disarms? If you read what I was replying to, rather than making assumptions, you'd have seen that I was replying to the statement SgtMac made here (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1264484&postcount=30). I got the distinct impression from that post, that he was basically saying that those mentioned folks, would always come out on top. Also, as I've said many times, at least there are some quality disarms out there, that will offer something. I'd rather have that, than nothing at all. *edit* For clarification, I do agree, that past arms reach, you're pretty much up the creek. Within arms reach...yes, IMO, you do stand a good chance of getting control or a disarm. See, I didn't get that impression from his post. And I made an inference about your comment, not an assumption, hence the *IF* in there ;) We seem to be misunderstanding each-other.





Oh no, there ya go again, painting me with that same brush. :D. Seriously though....if you've really taken the time to read any of my posts, you'd have seen that when it comes to people making claims that things will definately work, I'm the first to say that I dont care whether it works for them, I want to make sure it works for ME, and I"M the one doing it. I wasn't painting you with any brush, I was expounding on what you said. We agreed, I just took it further and applied to both sides of the discussion. I didn't want this to turn into an MMA bashing session and I was concerned that someone would take what you said and run with it ignoring the fact that it was only half of the argument. :) That's all.




Whos forgetting? I know I'm not. :D. I agree with this, said it many times. I've said that while things from TMA are in MMA, the application is whats different. I didn't mean YOU, "people" was generalized not directed in a passive aggressive manner. You know me well enough now to know I don't shy away from making direct statements ;)


Kenpo, Arnis, BJJ...those are the 3 that I train, those are the 3 that I feel blend very well for me. :) I dont mix them to make up my own style, but after training the Kenpo and Arnis for as long as I have, when I'm running thru techs., sometimes it just happens. I'm not thinking, "I'm going to do this or that." again, it just happens. :) Exactly. You move and flow differently because of your mixed training. In fact I'm willing to bet your entire approch to combat is different then your other kenpoka, BJJ players, or Arnis practitioners who practice just the one art.



It was probably me that made that comment, but anyways.....yup, I've said that many times as well...that some BJJ techs., with slight modification, can be applied while standing. Sure, I see nothing wrong with doing that, using 1 person as a momentary shield against someone else, etc. This comes from approching an art with a "how can I make this work for ME, how I fight, what my weaknesses are, what my strengths are and how to protect and use those.

[MJS]

See, I didn't get that impression from his post. And I made an inference about your comment, not an assumption, hence the *IF* in there ;) We seem to be misunderstanding each-other.




I wasn't painting you with any brush, I was expounding on what you said. We agreed, I just took it further and applied to both sides of the discussion. I didn't want this to turn into an MMA bashing session and I was concerned that someone would take what you said and run with it ignoring the fact that it was only half of the argument. :) That's all.



I didn't mean YOU, "people" was generalized not directed in a passive aggressive manner. You know me well enough now to know I don't shy away from making direct statements ;)

Exactly. You move and flow differently because of your mixed training. In fact I'm willing to bet your entire approch to combat is different then your other kenpoka, BJJ players, or Arnis practitioners who practice just the one art.


This comes from approching an art with a "how can I make this work for ME, how I fight, what my weaknesses are, what my strengths are and how to protect and use those.

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, it looks like there was some misunderstanding. :)

[Daniel Sullivan]

Just food for thought though that there is a whole core of BJJ techniques that are stand up self defense. Royce has an excellent book on it as well as I believe quite a bit is covered in Helio Gracies Master Text. However, unfortunately many of these techniques are not being taught in many BJJ academies at this point like they used to be. :(
The same is true of application of forms in most taekwondo schools. Sadly.

Daniel

[MJS]

Just food for thought though that there is a whole core of BJJ techniques that are stand up self defense. Royce has an excellent book on it as well as I believe quite a bit is covered in Helio Gracies Master Text. However, unfortunately many of these techniques are not being taught in many BJJ academies at this point like they used to be. :(


The same is true of application of forms in most taekwondo schools. Sadly.

Daniel

Of course, this begs the question of why is this the case? IMO, if something is that good, then one would figure it would be included.

[Daniel Sullivan]

Of course, this begs the question of why is this the case? IMO, if something is that good, then one would figure it would be included.
My guess is that somewhere along the line, kata and application became disconnected. Not that students did not learn the specific techniques in the application, but that they did not learn them in conjunction with the kata.

Could be as simple as somebody getting the idea that they could teach kata and then delve into the application of the kata for students who stuck around after black belt.

But whatever the reason, eventually, commercial minded owners figured out that they could make the same amount of money with less effort by simply running unknowing students through patterns from white belt to black belt without ever getting into the deeper applications. And eventually, that became the norm.

Daniel

[pmosiun1]

For the modern world, MMA training in many ways is better, punch, kick, grapple. In my opinion, the TMA training method only works for two man kata such as learning the japanese sword and not one person kata.

[MJS]

My guess is that somewhere along the line, kata and application became disconnected. Not that students did not learn the specific techniques in the application, but that they did not learn them in conjunction with the kata.

Could be as simple as somebody getting the idea that they could teach kata and then delve into the application of the kata for students who stuck around after black belt.

But whatever the reason, eventually, commercial minded owners figured out that they could make the same amount of money with less effort by simply running unknowing students through patterns from white belt to black belt without ever getting into the deeper applications. And eventually, that became the norm.

Daniel

Yup, sad but true. Seems like certain things get left out or watered down, to suit the masses.

[MJS]

For the modern world, MMA training in many ways is better, punch, kick, grapple. In my opinion, the TMA training method only works for two man kata such as learning the japanese sword and not one person kata.

Umm...you lost me on this one. This really isn't a thread on the pros/cons of kata. Daniel made a quick reference to them, while responding to a post from Brian, who was talking about the Sd techs. of BJJ.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, you're saying that TMAs are only good for kata, nothing else?

[Draven]

Well I've stated several times before how self-definition changes based on experience & thats true of your go to techniques based on training. I think that MMA is a sport and as such embraces many of the more modern science based sports training. TMAs I'm a bit more less trustful of as the whole concept of tradition often wieghs it down.

To give you an example of my personnal experience I have trained in both camps of ninjutsu x-kan & koga-ryu. I much more prefer the Koga Ryu systems (even if they are completely fraudulant) because they are more geared to progression & not tradition. Who cares what a dead samurai did 600 years ago if my problem is a gang-banger with a glock 17 & a need to prove himself?

I don't completely disconnect with the idea of tradition as an ideological guide post. I even find some concepts such as Makiwara, Various exercises & Kata applicatible to modern training methods. But, I also feel that understand the root of the art. I'm personnally against modern Shotokan karate because the Orgional Format including many grappling techniques similar to judo & Modern sport judo has left behind the Atemi-waza of the Kano's Kodokan Judo system. Yet both arts are considered traditional by a lineage they no longer ideologically represent.

So what I'm saying is simply that a) TMAs are often traditional in name only & b) that both have interesting elements to training which should be or can be adapted by all others.

[Sandwich]

Well Mixed Martial Artists do train TMA's. They just happen to train multiple ones and take the most effective aspects of each.

Most of the martial arts used in MMA are also sport martial arts. Some people scoff at them for this very reason, claiming that they're not great for self defense, only competition.

But my opinion is to the contrary. I think being competition martial arts is their biggest strength, and it makes them the best option for self-defense as well.

No amount of secret death strike training against air will ever prepare you for a fight as well as sparring against resisting opponents on a daily basis will (not to mention competing in tournaments against people who are trying really hard to hurt you).

Working on groin strikes or eye gouges in training is all fine and dandy. But in all honesty it doesn't take a secret kung-fu manual to know how to do these things.

Knowing what works is another important benefit of competition and sparring. MMA has been refined into a well oiled machine. People know what generally is effective and what isn't, yet there's still ways to develop, and new techniques that can be added.

And finally, being able to apply some technique in training is very different from applying that technique when your well-being depends upon it. If you can spar with opponents you can apply the techniques you've learned while they attempt to do the same. You learn how to use what you've learned while under pressure, and almost without thinking about it. You can find out what works, what doesn't, what needs to be adjusted, etc.