East vs. West - Is it Semantics Over Time?

[Steve]

Also consider the difference between a person with 12 weeks training fighting a similarly experienced person and a professional MMAist. The fifferenxe is that you think of the fight as a single objective or end game when it is as fundamentally part of the learning process as cooking edible food is to learning to cook.

The issue I see here own that you're grossly overgeneralizing tma AND mma. Tma in the direction of being complex and mma in the direction of being simple, in order to make a tenuous point.

 

[Steve]

Here's a question for the LE guys. how many techniques do you use routinely? BJJ, MMA, boxing, aikido. Whatever you might train, just football for us what percentage of the techniques you train do you use on the job?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Also consider the difference between a person with 12 weeks training fighting a similarly experienced person and a professional MMAist. The fifferenxe is that you think of the fight as a single objective or end game when it is as fundamentally part of the learning process as cooking edible food is to learning to cook.

The issue I see here own that you're grossly overgeneralizing tma AND mma. Tma in the direction of being complex and mma in the direction of being simple, in order to make a tenuous point.

I'll agree that it's a gross overgeneralization. There are likely exceptions in all directions. I thought I made that clear in my earlier post. If not, that's my bad.

I'm not looking at the fight as an end point - just a point in time for comparison. I don't think we could find anything anyone would agree upon as an end point.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Here's a question for the LE guys. how many techniques do you use routinely? BJJ, MMA, boxing, aikido. Whatever you might train, just football for us what percentage of the techniques you train do you use on the job?

I've asked this of both LEO and others who had to use their skills routinely. Most common answers were between 5 and 12. From the times I've gone more in-depth in that discussion (and understood their nomenclature), most of that variance is how they count "techniques" and what they mean by "routinely".

 

[Steve]

I've asked this of both LEO and others who had to use their skills routinely. Most common answers were between 5 and 12. From the times I've gone more in-depth in that discussion (and understood their nomenclature), most of that variance is how they count "techniques" and what they mean by "routinely".

I'm curious what they might say, but 5 to 12 seems like a relative few compared to what they might train. Don't you think?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm curious what they might say, but 5 to 12 seems like a relative few compared to what they might train. Don't you think?

Definitely. I see the same among martial arts - we mostly train a lot more techniques than we commonly use. There's some variability among practitioners, but a lot of overlap. I could narrow down what folks actually use the most in NGA to maybe 20 techniques that cover most people in most situations - this covers variations between individuals, too. Most of the rest I'd classify as gap fillers, fun stuff for play, redundancies that give more options, and stuff for learning principles.

 

[Steve]

Can you further explain what you mean when you say "use" about 20 techniques? Used in sparring? Used while at work in a potentially violent job? Used in ritual combat? How are the techniques used?

And is your experience with the use anecdotal or have you used them or witnessed their use personally?

Finally, considering your posts below, and your acknowledgmebt about techniques used by "TMA" do you still believe MMA to be less complex? I struggle to see how you could.

Oddly, I think that last sentence is something that's open for debate. I've often heard both MMA and TMA folks say that TMA has stuff that makes it take longer (makes it harder) to learn. MMA is typically more simplified, and is probably the easier approach to learn, because of that.

Okay, I'll grant that if you cover the full range vs covering part of that range, it might take longer. But let's compare the number of kicks and strikes taught in most striking arts. Then look at how many are commonly used in MMA. You could develop competency in the common MMA strikes in a much shorter time than in the range taught in most striking arts. That was my point. I actually like that TMA often has extra techniques and stuff to fiddle with. I love fiddling. Once you've got a decent base of skills, fiddling is really where most of us like to spend our time, in my experience. We want to tweak and get things feeling more simple and less effortful. We practice things that solve problems we could solve with the techniques already in that base, but this new technique is, well, new. And it's challenging, so it gives us something to tinker with.

I'm sure some of the same happens with folks who train MMA long enough. I certainly see some of it in BJJ folks, many of whom are every bit as cerebral after a point as any TMA-er I know.

But let's go back to the typical TMA approach - and I know that's averaging some things that aren't very similar, so accept it for the thought experiment it is, please. There's a fair amount of long, slow drilling of stances and postures that we tend to think of as "foundation" but which boxing and MMA approach differently. Yep, they still have stances, but they tend to focus on them less, use ones that are closer to "normal" movement, and only really point them out when there's a real issue. It doesn't matter whether your foot is pointing exactly 45 degrees, as long as your balance and mobility are appropriate.

And remember, I actually really tend to prefer parts of the TMA approach. I like how it works. I also know there are parts of it that aren't about learning faster, nor even really about a better foundation (that might have been the objective, but I've seen no clear evidence it actually produces different results).

in

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Can you further explain what you mean when you say "use" about 20 techniques? Used in sparring? Used while at work in a potentially violent job? Used in ritual combat? How are the techniques used?

And is your experience with the use anecdotal or have you used them or witnessed their use personally?

Finally, considering your posts below, and your acknowledgmebt about techniques used by "TMA" do you still believe MMA to be less complex? I struggle to see how you could.

in

All the above, actually. In the dojo, there's a predictable subset of techniques that are most commonly used. Reports from LEO, bouncers, and such I've trained with are that some of those (but not the whole group) are also in what they use most. If you were watching a class, you'd probably be able to pick out which ones they are - they're the ones that are a bit simpler, less prone to timing failure, and less finicky.

My comment earlier was about what's taught, rather than what's used. You're making rather the same point I was, I think. MMA coaches (from what I understand - again, I'm open to being corrected) don't spend (as much?) time teaching/working on things that aren't likely to get used. And they save gap fillers for after things are starting to look coherent. In the first 10 named (classical) techniques in NGA, maybe half of those would be in the list of "most used" techniques, and a couple of those would be more "dojo" use, because they're specializations that don't have very many applications, but people like giving the attacks (like a RNC attempt), so they see regular use in the dojo. Some of the others that show up in the dojo are fun to do, and are low-risk when you know the other guy isn't actually going to clock you hard, but wouldn't ever be a go-to in a risky situation.

 

[Steve]

All the above, actually. In the dojo, there's a predictable subset of techniques that are most commonly used. Reports from LEO, bouncers, and such I've trained with are that some of those (but not the whole group) are also in what they use most. If you were watching a class, you'd probably be able to pick out which ones they are - they're the ones that are a bit simpler, less prone to timing failure, and less finicky.

My comment earlier was about what's taught, rather than what's used. You're making rather the same point I was, I think. MMA coaches (from what I understand - again, I'm open to being corrected) don't spend (as much?) time teaching/working on things that aren't likely to get used. And they save gap fillers for after things are starting to look coherent. In the first 10 named (classical) techniques in NGA, maybe half of those would be in the list of "most used" techniques, and a couple of those would be more "dojo" use, because they're specializations that don't have very many applications, but people like giving the attacks (like a RNC attempt), so they see regular use in the dojo. Some of the others that show up in the dojo are fun to do, and are low-risk when you know the other guy isn't actually going to clock you hard, but wouldn't ever be a go-to in a risky situation.

I think mma coaches teach just as many techniques as you do . probably significantly more. My point is yiure mixing things up again. In this case you're confusing executing a game plan in a single event to training. An mma match is a single event, like a fight .

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think mma coaches teach just as many techniques as you do . probably significantly more. My point is yiure mixing things up again. In this case you're confusing executing a game plan in a single event to training. An mma match is a single event, like a fight .

Perhaps you're right. I've always gotten the impression that MMA-focused training typically (that word again, I know) focused on a smaller number of techniques, because it had that fight focus. Of course, like I said earlier, some of that may come down to how you count "techniques". Some of the named techniques in NGA aren't (in my opinion) meant to have direct application, but are really ways to practice principles and movement. If I stop thinking of those as "techniques", we could toss them in the same category as the animal walks Tony just educated me about. Re-counting that way, it could easily be that there's an equal number of "things" taught in both approaches.

 

[Steve]

Gerry I think I need to stop reading your posts for a while. I think you're a nice guy but I just can't take it. We are on a break. You have my permission to argue with other people who are more patient than I.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Here's a question for the LE guys. how many techniques do you use routinely? BJJ, MMA, boxing, aikido. Whatever you might train, just football for us what percentage of the techniques you train do you use on the job?

Not law enforcement, but they usually do what they are taught during their training courses. they dont technically do any style they just do X,Y,Z grab, restraint etc. Well, at least any good agency should have its own training program which covers restraining persons in it. There is a legal reason for this and just a logical one. the legal one is so they can manage force correctly and avoid any suing from lack of training etc, the logical one is to put everyone on the same baseline of what they know. (if anyone didnt know this)

 

[Flying Crane]

It is my opinion that the right choice of a half dozen or so simple techniques, trained well, will be sufficient to handle 90-95% of what is most likely to come at you. Another half dozen will pretty much pick up the remaining 5-10%. And another half dozen will hand the rare and unusual stuff.

We don’t really need a lot. We just need to be good at a few things.

 

[now disabled]

I can’t think of a single TMA that is more complicated

That all depends on your standpoint

TMA there are possibly more nuances and parts that have to be taken in to achieve what we all strive for which is perfection (and that will never happen) so it could be taken to be more complicated to achieve

That said I do see where you are coming from with MMA

 

[now disabled]

Not law enforcement, but they usually do what they are taught during their training courses. they dont technically do any style they just do X,Y,Z grab, restraint etc. Well, at least any good agency should have its own training program which covers restraining persons in it. There is a legal reason for this and just a logical one. the legal one is so they can manage force correctly and avoid any suing from lack of training etc, the logical one is to put everyone on the same baseline of what they know. (if anyone didnt know this)

I know some leo's and they have said what they are taught well they are taught but what they use is what they use ...as in I have two friends one is a Karateka and he uses what he knows if he has to and the othere is a JJ guy and his evaluation of what they are taught is unrepeatable lol so he sticks with what he knows to

I'd say the legal reason is so that if the Sh*t hits the fan they can say they used what they were taught

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Gerry I think I need to stop reading your posts for a while. I think you're a nice guy but I just can't take it. We are on a break. You have my permission to argue with other people who are more patient than I.

No worries, Steve. Not sure why this thread got on your nerves - I found it an interesting discussion, and might have corrected a misperception of mine.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That all depends on your standpoint

TMA there are possibly more nuances and parts that have to be taken in to achieve what we all strive for which is perfection (and that will never happen) so it could be taken to be more complicated to achieve

That said I do see where you are coming from with MMA

I think maybe this is more what I was thinking, but then we have the arts that kind of cross over where I draw the lines of TMA and MMA. BJJ is definitely somehow in both camps, which probably mostly attests to the vagueness of my personal use of the terms. And more of that might just be my own perception of how MMA is approached. Maybe there's more useful nuance than I thought - I've attributed a lot of the nuanced training to just what you mention here: a pursuit of perfection (for the sake of the pursuit) rather than any real focus on fight efficacy. And maybe folks training MMA enjoy fiddling as much as I do. I dunno.

 

[now disabled]

I think maybe this is more what I was thinking, but then we have the arts that kind of cross over where I draw the lines of TMA and MMA. BJJ is definitely somehow in both camps, which probably mostly attests to the vagueness of my personal use of the terms. And more of that might just be my own perception of how MMA is approached. Maybe there's more useful nuance than I thought - I've attributed a lot of the nuanced training to just what you mention here: a pursuit of perfection (for the sake of the pursuit) rather than any real focus on fight efficacy. And maybe folks training MMA enjoy fiddling as much as I do. I dunno.

Once you have reached a certain level in an art (not all arts could you do that tho) is it not really the sign of a good any martial artist that he does fiddle and does look for not just the nuances taught but his own nuances that make it work for him or in a real situation?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Once you have reached a certain level in an art (not all arts could you do that tho) is it not really the sign of a good any martial artist that he does fiddle and does look for not just the nuances taught but his own nuances that make it work for him or in a real situation?

That's true. The "fiddling" I'm talking about is like when you are just trying that one point in a projection to see if you change the angle of extension a couple of degrees, what happens. Or how different is that lock if the pivot starts an inch earlier in the compression. That's not terribly useful from a direct practical standpoint, but it helps understand what's really making the throw work. It arguably takes away from training with intensity and finding out how it works in live circumstances, but it's still interesting, and something I love to do.

 

[now disabled]

That's true. The "fiddling" I'm talking about is like when you are just trying that one point in a projection to see if you change the angle of extension a couple of degrees, what happens. Or how different is that lock if the pivot starts an inch earlier in the compression. That's not terribly useful from a direct practical standpoint, but it helps understand what's really making the throw work. It arguably takes away from training with intensity and finding out how it works in live circumstances, but it's still interesting, and something I love to do.

I do too lol or did anyway .... like when we were talking about your NGA wheel throw ...I just had to try it as it follows same principles as I have just less complicated than what I would call a wheel throw