Has MMA surpassed traditional MA in its effectiveness
- Thread starter suicide
- Start date
DergaSmash
Yellow Belt
I don't think so. I'm not knocking MMA in anyway. I've trained in Krav Maga and Army Combatives which is similar to BJJ, but I have also trained in both traditional and contemporary Chinese arts. I'm not saying MMA isn't effective in terms of self defense. But I think that any fight that has rules and gear no matter how little, isn't an accurate display of its ability in self defense. There is no small joint manipulation, nor groin strikes in MMA fights.
I also feel that traditional arts bring something MMA and a lot of contemporary arts don't. There is something to be said for being part of a tradition, for learning something that has been passed down for a long time. I personally have a sense of pride in learning traditional CMA from my Sifu. I like that I can trace the lineage of my Hung Gar back to the founder of the system Hung Hei Goon. In addition, MA are constantly evolving. People cross train, add and subtract techniques that work and don't work. I'm no expert by any means, this is simply my opinion on what I am sure is going to be a pretty hot debate.
I also feel that traditional arts bring something MMA and a lot of contemporary arts don't. There is something to be said for being part of a tradition, for learning something that has been passed down for a long time. I personally have a sense of pride in learning traditional CMA from my Sifu. I like that I can trace the lineage of my Hung Gar back to the founder of the system Hung Hei Goon. In addition, MA are constantly evolving. People cross train, add and subtract techniques that work and don't work. I'm no expert by any means, this is simply my opinion on what I am sure is going to be a pretty hot debate.
SenseiBear
Blue Belt
Nope
myusername
Brown Belt
If you mean effectiveness in self defence then I personally don't think so. I would say that a good traditional school with hard, full resistance and reality based training can better prepare a student to defend themselves in a real self defence scenario. I say this purely because there is more scope to drill and prepare for a greater variety of scenarios such as ambushes, multiple attackers, weapon defence etc.
However, as we all know there are plenty of traditional schools that don't train hard enough or with enough variety of combat ranges to prepare their students effectively for self -defence. We also know that a student of MMA will learn to fight from all combat ranges and will compete at full contact with full resistance. Therefore, it would be fair to suggest that a fit MMA competitior is better prepared to handle themselves in a self defence situation that an overweight traditional martial artist who has never tested his skill under stress and has no idea of how defend themselves against a competant grappler.
So in my humble opinion it is not so much that MMA surpasses TMA in its effectiveness for self defence it actually all boils down to how realistically it is trained and whether the TMA is utilising all of the scope in diverse scenarios and combat ranges available to it. For self defence, I would personally choose a good traditional school every time over MMA. However, if there was not a good traditional school available but only "fluffy" ones then I would probably choose an MMA gym.
However, as we all know there are plenty of traditional schools that don't train hard enough or with enough variety of combat ranges to prepare their students effectively for self -defence. We also know that a student of MMA will learn to fight from all combat ranges and will compete at full contact with full resistance. Therefore, it would be fair to suggest that a fit MMA competitior is better prepared to handle themselves in a self defence situation that an overweight traditional martial artist who has never tested his skill under stress and has no idea of how defend themselves against a competant grappler.
So in my humble opinion it is not so much that MMA surpasses TMA in its effectiveness for self defence it actually all boils down to how realistically it is trained and whether the TMA is utilising all of the scope in diverse scenarios and combat ranges available to it. For self defence, I would personally choose a good traditional school every time over MMA. However, if there was not a good traditional school available but only "fluffy" ones then I would probably choose an MMA gym.
Good hard MMA training is great!
Good hard TMA training is great!
Good hard Combatives training is great!
However, in the moment whether in the ring or in a self defense situation it comes down to the individual!
In other words you can train in the absolutely most fantastic system but if you do not bring it when needed then you are out of luck!
Good hard TMA training is great!
Good hard Combatives training is great!
However, in the moment whether in the ring or in a self defense situation it comes down to the individual!
In other words you can train in the absolutely most fantastic system but if you do not bring it when needed then you are out of luck!
This is a broad question. I could ask...effectiveness in what? I've said it before, and I'll say it again....I think that both TMAs and MMAs should look at each other, and incorporate things that the other has to offer. Now, if you look at the hard training, fitness wise, the conditioning, yes, in many cases, MMA will surpass TMA. Why? Well, I need not say anything more than this....look at some martial artists and in many cases, you'll see people out of shape. Then look at the MMA guys. What do you see?
If we look at it from a SD point of view....well, depending on the MMA gym, I'd say that in many cases, the TMAist will surpass the MMA guy. Many MMA gyms are focused just on the sport side, and thats fine, but there are many who fail to see that its lacking in that area. Again, dont take this as a slam, because I could turn around and say that many TMA schools are lacking in the ground game.
The my art vs your art debates will rage on for years and years to come. Whats important is that each student decides for themselves what they want out of their training. However, I feel that each should be open minded to other things that're out there.
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
Bas Rutten could kick my *** and break my spine so MMA can be good for self defense.
Tanemura sensei could do all sorts of highly interesting things to me and break my spine so TMA can be good for self defense.
It all depends on the person and how he trains, not what he trains. As someone mentioned earlier: an experienced carpenter is probably a very deadly person if he can defend himself with his hammer.
Tanemura sensei could do all sorts of highly interesting things to me and break my spine so TMA can be good for self defense.
It all depends on the person and how he trains, not what he trains. As someone mentioned earlier: an experienced carpenter is probably a very deadly person if he can defend himself with his hammer.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
You're, of course, wanting to know if MMA has surpassed TMA's in effectiveness for self-defense.......WHICH TMA's?
Taekwondo? Judo? Karate?
The question requires quite a few definitions in order to even begin to be answerable. Some folks will jump in and say 'Well, MMA is a sport....' But, then, so is Taekwondo and Judo..........furthermore the UFC may be new, but the style of fighting is actually very old and predates most modern 'TMA's'.......at it's core it's the fundamentals of unarmed fighting.......Boxing/Kicking/Grappling/Wrestling........an old theme with a new name, devoid of and stripped of formal trappings.
I'll defer, again, to Bruce Lee
A punch is a punch and a kick is a kick..........the formal trappings of many TMA's is the only thing that separate them from what many practicing MMA or even RBSD are doing..........the later have merely stripped away the formal trappings of asian culture, and westernized the practices in to pure study of mechanics........which, I suspect, is what REALLY offends some people about MMA/RBSD and the like......the stripping away of those formal trappings and rituals.
Suicide, are you going to post an opinion yourself or just throw out random questions?
Your question is an open one, effectiveness for what? Some posters are assuming you mean self defence, is that what you mean or is it something else? the effectiveness of getting students in the door, making money,fighting fitness or what?
Your question is an open one, effectiveness for what? Some posters are assuming you mean self defence, is that what you mean or is it something else? the effectiveness of getting students in the door, making money,fighting fitness or what?
jarrod
Senior Master
we already know the answer to this tez.
i do think though that generally speaking most sport styles have more effective training methods, meaning their methods are the fastest way to develop the target skills, often while developing athletic ability as well.
jf
I know lol but thought I'd try to get an answer. :ultracool
What is a "fluffy" school?
In order to judge effectiveness you need an objective by which you can measure that effectiveness.
Is a hammer effective? No, it's quite useless if you are tying to play a MP3.
The different martial arts do different things, if they didn't we wouldn't have different martial arts. There is overlap, as most of them do a few things and some of those get shared between multiple ones.
Some are like hammers, fairly specialized and the best thing available for a select set of common objectives. Others are more like a swiss army knife, doing a lot of things, but none of them as well as others do, yet still extremely useful and convenient.
myusername
Brown Belt
Ah sorry I couldn't think of a better word for it. By fluffy I mean a school that is afraid of a little contact. When I first starting looking for a martial arts class I came across a couple where it was nothing but air punches between students with techniques stopping shot of touching each other. Nothing against this sort of past time as everyone there was lovely but it was just a little light and fluffy for my tastes.
Kwan Jang
Purple Belt
I think that the "live" pressure testing and ruleset in MMA is the most realistic way a young, healthy advanced martial artist can spar in a safe manner. I think this is a great training tool for those who are ready for it, but in of itself it's not the peak for self defense. Using it with other aspects of training found in TMA's and RBSD would be of great value. Also many in the MMA game neglect many intermediate steps taught in the TMA's that would be of great value to their overall effectiveness IMO. My guess is that in time, many drills from the TMA's will be adapted into MMA training to plug these holes. Both sides can learn from each other and as things evolve, I'm sure this will be the case.
searcher
Senior Master
I have been having this debate of recent with some locals in my area who are hugely into MMA and the styles that frequently win at it. It all comes down to who you ask and what the individual likes. I also just had a rant in another thread about this subject. There are people on another forum that will put down anything that is not in their way of doing things or those that out-rank them. I know they justrecently attacked a member of this board without justification and are doing everything they can to destroy him. At what point did we all turn on each other?
Not trying to jack the thread, but come on. All this does is create more problems then it solves. Effective depends on the situation and who is involved.
Not trying to jack the thread, but come on. All this does is create more problems then it solves. Effective depends on the situation and who is involved.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
Uncle Mikes' Taekwondo Emporium specializing in turning 8 year old's in to Black Belts in less than a year for under $2,000.00.
