TMA vs MMA Revisited, A different type of debate.

The Master

Bow Before Me.
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
187
Reaction score
23
Location
Time and Space
We have all seen the never ending argument on which is better.
The arguments of tradition vs effectiveness vs street vs cage.
It's a never ending arguement.

So why reopen it?

Because, this is not intended to be that arguement, and I will thank those who can't get enough of it for staying on this topic and not turning this into yet anothr flame fest in advance.

So what is this then?

Simple.

It is for the discussion, note I said discussion not insult fest, of the pros and cons of each approach to training.
What are the benefits of each approach?
Which one develops key skills better?
Which one develops endurance, stamina, free thinking, improves response time, etc.

This is not a "which is best" overall argument. I would like to see some hard data, some real evidence, and maybe even some true life tales.

Can you do it? Or, will we be condemned to be tossed into the Great Debate with the other pointless and perpetual turd fest?

I Thank you.
 
...the discussion...of the pros and cons of each approach to training.

What are the benefits of each approach?
Which one develops key skills better?
Which one develops endurance, stamina, free thinking, improves response time, etc.

One problem I see at the outset is that even within TMA, there is a huge range of training styles. You get everything from the standard kihon across-the-floor robotics to kumite/one-steps/three-steps, which people for some reason confuse with combat training, to the kata-based `sparring' that Abernethy and his crowd do with karate, which consists of close-to-streetfight levels of force delivery to train the realistic combat applications of kata, involving throws, sweeps, locks and so on, along with the finishing strikes these moves set up, at close to real-fight levels of force, where only areas like eyes, throat and temple are spared (and here, touches substitute for blinding finger thrusts and elbow strikes to the larynx). I know which of these training approaches I'd vote for as the most effective for the purposes I train TKD for... but there isn't a single training method for the TMAs. There might be for MMA, it wouldn't surprise me, but people do TMAs for a very wide variety of purposes, as I've noticed, and they train quite differently within each art...
 
This is my point of view on the whole TMA-MMA "match".

I am not gonna say which one is better, also coz in my opinion no MA is better, no matter if it is TMA or MMA.
In MMA are taken part of TMA to make what is thought to obtain a more complete MA. Both Arts work on techniques and working on techniques means start learning on how to respond on certain situations.
Developing reflexes and quick respons to a situation depends on the practitioner, how long he/she trains and a bunch of personal qualities which differ from person to person.
I make a simple example with my Art, but of course there is more about it. I can learn 1 or 10 techniques in 1 day at the dojo, but the way I do it will change me. I can be thrown down, get up fix my Gi get ready, approach the opponent, redo the technique. Do it for 2 hours can teach you the technique, but nothing else. Same situation, but be thrown, jump up immediately and without thinking re-attack immediately. This way train body, reflexes, respons and so on. Now if I face someone who trains in the first way (whatever MA) I will tend to say his MA is not good because it provides mechanical insinct. But if I face someone who trains in the second way in the same MA, I will be very impressed because the MAist will have good skills.

IMHO, the real difference between TMA and MMA it is not about skills, effectiveness or the quality which developes in the MAist, but the difference is in the word "Traditional".
As a Traditional MA there is behind years of history and thus it created a certain phylosophy which comes with the art itself. While with the MMA the subject is merely a topic of fight.

Just my 2 cents.
 
We have all seen the never ending argument on which is better.
The arguments of tradition vs effectiveness vs street vs cage.
It's a never ending arguement.

So why reopen it?

Because, this is not intended to be that arguement, and I will thank those who can't get enough of it for staying on this topic and not turning this into yet anothr flame fest in advance.

So what is this then?

Simple.

It is for the discussion, note I said discussion not insult fest, of the pros and cons of each approach to training.
What are the benefits of each approach?
Which one develops key skills better?
Which one develops endurance, stamina, free thinking, improves response time, etc.

This is not a "which is best" overall argument. I would like to see some hard data, some real evidence, and maybe even some true life tales.

Can you do it? Or, will we be condemned to be tossed into the Great Debate with the other pointless and perpetual turd fest?

I Thank you.

The MMAs, IMO, have opened the eyes for many, as to the importance of certain areas of training. First and foremost, I'd have to say grapplers showed how key it is to have at the minimum, a basic understanding of the ground and some basic defense/escapes. I'd have to say that resistance/aliveness is also right up there.

There may be some TMAs that are so traditional, that they refuse to look at anything outside of their training methods. Looking outside the box is never a bad thing.

I'd have to say that while the MMAs could be used in a street altercation, their primary focus is the ring. That being said, their training methods are geared to the ring. Taking possible street scenarios into their training, would make them even more well rounded.

Depending on how they're trained, both arts have the potential to develop key skills.

MMAists have tremendous stamina. Cardio is a big focus. Again, this is not to take away from TMAs, as their workouts can be pretty tough.

The lists can go on and on, but the bottom line is, is that each has something to offer. It all depends on what the goal is.

I too, hope that this discussion can be productive.
 
Because, this is not intended to be that arguement, and I will thank those who can't get enough of it for staying on this topic and not turning this into yet anothr flame fest in advance.

I'll do my best.

It is for the discussion, note I said discussion not insult fest, of the pros and cons of each approach to training.
What are the benefits of each approach?
Which one develops key skills better?
Which one develops endurance, stamina, free thinking, improves response time, etc.

This is not a "which is best" overall argument. I would like to see some hard data, some real evidence,

Here we immediately encounter a problem. This argument (and one will probably emerge although we will try to not to make one) is fundamentally about what we choose to count as proof. MMA and TMA CANNOT, IMO, be equal. If TMA systems claims are true, then MMA fighters are foolish for overlooking the most effective techniques available - if those claims are false, then TMAists are training far outside the optimum practices.

You should look at the following threads:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41662
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34688
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35356&highlight=middle+ground+mma+tma
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38565&highlight=middle+ground+mma+tma
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32843&highlight=middle+ground+mma+tma
 
I'll do my best.



Here we immediately encounter a problem. This argument (and one will probably emerge although we will try to not to make one) is fundamentally about what we choose to count as proof. MMA and TMA CANNOT, IMO, be equal. If TMA systems claims are true, then MMA fighters are foolish for overlooking the most effective techniques available - if those claims are false, then TMAists are training far outside the optimum practices.

You should look at the following threads:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41662
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34688
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35356&highlight=middle+ground+mma+tma
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38565&highlight=middle+ground+mma+tma
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32843&highlight=middle+ground+mma+tma

Apparently the discussion is already going off topic! First off, pretty much every thread you linked, is pointing to discussions in which the OP was hoping to avoid. Second, I see nothing in your post that even remotely talks about their approaches to training. I'll give an example.

You stated:

If TMA systems claims are true, then MMA fighters are foolish for overlooking the most effective techniques available - if those claims are false, then TMAists are training far outside the optimum practices.

however, the OP stated this:

We have all seen the never ending argument on which is better.
The arguments of tradition vs effectiveness vs street vs cage.
It's a never ending arguement.

So why reopen it?

Maybe I'm just misreading, I don't know. As for an argument errupting...well, there are many other threads, such as the ones you listed, that contain those arguments, so if someone feels the need to continue beating the dead horse, why not just go back to those threads? Perhaps before we hit the send button, we should read and re-read what we type. If its not falling into the guidelines, an edit may be in order.

Mike
 
I'm not looking for the argument. MMA guys and TMA guys do what they do because they believe it's the right thing. Trying to convince them otherwise is like teaching a pig to sing. It don''t work, and just annoys the pig.

There are a couple different ways we can explore things.

Pick an attribute or skill set. Say, kicking. If I want to learn to kick realy well, what should I look for regardless of art-type, then what arts really teach that?

Or punching? If I want to throw killer punches, again, what should I look for in general, then specifically where should I look?

How about building up my lower back or working on strengthening my knees?
What should I look for, what should I specifically avoid, and which arts are better or worse for that?

I'm looking at this from a number of different ideas. Sport fighter, street fighter, self defense, hobbiest, fitness buff, etc.

For example, lets go back to kicking.
Strong kicks, Muay Thai.
Fancy kicks, TKD/Savate
Solid kicks, Karate/MT.
What else should I know about kicking? Doing it safely, training without blowing out my knees or hips or back? Other arts to cross train in, etc.
 
I'm not looking for the argument. MMA guys and TMA guys do what they do because they believe it's the right thing. Trying to convince them otherwise is like teaching a pig to sing. It don''t work, and just annoys the pig.

There are a couple different ways we can explore things.

Pick an attribute or skill set. Say, kicking. If I want to learn to kick realy well, what should I look for regardless of art-type, then what arts really teach that? ...

For example, lets go back to kicking.
Strong kicks, Muay Thai.
Fancy kicks, TKD/Savate
Solid kicks, Karate/MT.

What else should I know about kicking? Doing it safely, training without blowing out my knees or hips or back? Other arts to cross train in, etc.

OK, so specifics. Well, you need three things for good kicking: balance, power and accuracy. Three different training modes, therefore:

balance: I'm assuming a concommitant strength-training program for your legs, because strength is implicated in balance: you can't get in a balanced configuration if you aren't strong enough to maintain your limbs through the component well-balanced positions of the kick. Assuming you have the strength, you have to train balance so that you can count on it without having to use momentum to keep you upright (because in a real fight, the momentum of your delivery can be interrupted any number of ways. Minimizing reliance on momentum means slowing the kick way down. So the best balance exercises for kicking, I've found, involve execution of kicks at a variety of heights in good (ideally perfect) form at arbitrarily slow speeds. Eventually you should be able to freeze your kicking leg in any position in the trajectory of the kick and maintain it there for, say, 15 seconds minimum. When you can do that, try to learn to do it with your eyes closed. Drill high kicks, not because you should be using them in real combat, but because they stress balance skills severely.

Around 100 kicks per day of each basic type (turning, front snap, rear leg side kick, slide side kick) with each leg.


power: Kick a heavy swinging bag under various conditions. Swing the bag, and nail it at mid height, or lower, early in the swing, at midpoint, and at the end, trying to stop it dead in its tracks each time. Another good exercise: do a slow `balance-drill' style kick, but at the very end, drive your leg into the bag as hard as possible. Only allow yourself a few inches. Then give yourself a few more nches and do the same thing, etc.

accuracy Focus mits (with a partner, who's continuously changing the position of the mitts, which should be as small as possible) or removable marks on a bag. to give yourself a target.

A program built along these lines will yield very good kicking skills if carried out consistently over many months. But there is a fourth training mode for kicks, as part of realistic combat training, where all the apps will involve low or lower-mid kicks, as reflected in the orginal forms of the katas and TKD hyungs. If you look at the poomse for Korean arts, they have very few kicks relative to hand techs and those kicks are waist high at the highest. Probably originally they were all low...

Is this the sort of thing you had in mind?
 
It is for the discussion, note I said discussion not insult fest, of the pros and cons of each approach to training.
What are the benefits of each approach?
all of the following is JMHO, OK?

As I see it, the MMA have "re-introduced" something TMA's seemed to have largely forgotten - a superior base level of physical fitness and live training. This is what I thank the MMA's for doing / accomplishing in the world of MA.

TMA's have the benifit of history behind them - they are a complete system - a way of life that creates a quality human being. They are also historically proven to be effective else they wouldn't be here - the practitioners would all be dead way back in the day.


Which one develops key skills better?
Both develop key skills. The question isn't which is better, but which is better for the application? MMA tends to develop a core set of skills very rapidly, but those skill sets are still primarily sport based. They work great and are translatable into "practical" fighting very easily, but MMA is still judged by ring success, so that is still the primary focus of training.

TMA's tend to develop skills at a slightly slower pace, but within a complete framwork. That is, you are not just learning the technique, you are learning philosophy, forms, history, etc. The goal is to create an entire lifestyle. My personal opinion is that MMA neglects the "Art" aspect of Martial Arts to focus on the Sport and Combat aspects. These are not the same things to me and without starting that argument again, I 'll leave it as my opinion.

Which one develops endurance, stamina, free thinking, improves response time, etc.
Both, if you train properly - there is no advantage to either one here as this is entirely up to the indivduals effort in training. However, this was where TMA's had gone down the wrong road. They had allowed physical training to fall by the wayside in pursuit of other aspects of training and the reality of combat / sport is that you need to train HARD! MMA's do this. Good TMA schools do this.

This is not a "which is best" overall argument. I would like to see some hard data, some real evidence, and maybe even some true life tales.

Not sure what you mean here - you don't want facts to support which is best - what should the facts support?

truew life tale - I've got 26 years in a martial art that is a kind of bastard half breed between the two and while I have spent the last ten years focusing primarily on the TMA aspects, I went through my competitive years at the start of the Ultimate fighting phenominon when EVERYBODY wanted to fight on the ground. I trained with many people and I did very well as a striker with a few key skills on the ground (amazing what a good sprawl can do - just ask Chuck Liddel ;) ) due to the fact that sooo many people were starting off with a much poorer level of physical fitness than me (I had been kickboxing competitively for two years by this time). As the fitness level went up, my success went down - so I started training harder in our (python) ground techniques. Who knows where it might have gone if I hadn't fallen in love with the Kukri and cane and decided to focus on that instead? The point is, that level of training is important if you want to master the techniques against a live opponent.

I Thank you.
Thank you as well for this thread.
 
Hello, The closer your training gets to real fighing the better you will be prepare for the real thing!

Both MMA and TMA : like two different weapons - both can kill!

Real fights are fast, furious, and NO RULES.....Do you train this way?

Remember both MMA and TMA...teaches - eye pokes, throat strikes, breaking techniques, among all the other striking and blocking stuffs.

If both are equal in skills? UM? should be equal...if one is better than the other...than one is going to win?

How do you measure a person skill levels? for MMA or TMA 's (belts and ranks do not mean a thing in a real fight)

Measurements: 2x4, 2x6's, 1 ton, 7 oz, 1 quart,two gallons, which one are you?

MY measurements : slow, older, 5x9, 3/4 ton, half gallon. .......Aloha
 
How about if everyone just assume that whatever someone wishes to claim about the art they practice is true? None of us has studied everything, and neither has anyone studied under every good teacher in the art(s) that we do practice. So we can assume that to some degree, we are all missing SOMETHING in the art that we train. Given this, none of us are really in any position to dispute what someone else does.

If you claim your stuff is great, how can I argue against that? I haven't studied your art, so I don't know enough about it to dispute your claim. Even if I studied your art, I haven't studied under your teacher, so again, how can I possibly dispute your claim? Maybe you have something that I didn't learn, and vice versa.

So if you say it works and works well, OK, I accept that.

So then what can we discuss? How about you take your art and talk about what you believe it does well, how it is done, maybe admit to what you perceive as its weaknesses (that may be inherent in the art, or simply in yourself). We don't need to establish which art is "better" (it's impossible to agree upon anyway), but we can look at the different arts thru how people here present them, describe their methods and their approach to training. Everyone is welcome to decide for themselves if what they see described here makes sense to them. Just remember: something that doesn't make sense to you, or that doesn't work for you, might still work tremendously well for someone else. That's the beauty of all this. Everyone is different, different body type, different skills and talents, strengths and weaknesses, psychology, likes and dislikes. Of course there is no one single art that is indisputably the "BEST" single art for everyone. Instead, everyone needs to find what is best for him/herself.

So I'll go first, and describe my favorite art, Tibetan White Crane. This art was supposedly developed by Tibetan Lamas back in the 1400s. It was brought into Southern China later on, and became counted among the Southern Chinese arts. It is a fast-moving, hard-hitting, unusual longfist method, and there are legends of its proponents in the past defeating scores of challengers and leaving their bodies stacked like cordwood. Of course I take those legends with a grain of salt, but they are fun to know.

The Tibetan White Crane is completely different from Fukien/Southern Shaolin White Crane, and any other White Crane art. They are entirely different in technique and history.

The art combines a full body pivot and torque, combined with a relaxed swing to throw some really devastating hand strikes. They land like sledgehammers. We tend to avoid a grappling situation, and instead hit and run. We charge in and throw punches from every direction until something lands and the enemy goes down. It is fast and explosive and can be very difficult to deal with on the receiving end.

The art contains many very long forms that must be done at high speed and high energy. It is not an art for someone who is very out of shape. If you don't last long enough to get into shape, you will probably not last long in the practice. It develops a high level of conditioning and stamina, and teaches you to relax in your delivery to hit harder while working less hard. As I mentioned earlier, we rely on a relaxed swing and pivot to deliver power, not muscular force, yet the art requires a lot of stamina to practice.

The art is very aggressive. Either you deliver a full-out blizzard of punches, or you don't do anything. It's pretty tough to only go halfway. It is not effective at a reduced level of intensity.

Defensive movements are hidden within the offensive movements. they do exist, but the attack takes higher precedence.

The art seems to focus primarily on hit-and-run, and not grappling and certainly not wrestling (at least in how I learned it). There is definitely chin-na in the art, but the focus is on pummelling the enemy into the dirt. that's OK with me because it fits my interests better. I personally don't have much interest in the wrestling arts. I recognize that leaves a hole in my knowledge, but that is a choice I make. I simply don't find myself attracted much to the wrestling arts.

Speed is very important in executing these techniques. Because of the unusual nature of the longfist punches that we do, they can leave you somewhat open in between strikes. Speed is used to overcome this, minimizing the moment when you are open, while forcing the enemy to deal with the raining blizzard of attacks. The need for this speed is what makes it difficult to master.

Anyway, this is a start. I would be happy to answer any questions about the art, and look forward to seeing other's contributions and discussions about their own methods.
 
I'll go first, and describe my favorite art, Tibetan White Crane... It is a fast-moving, hard-hitting, unusual longfist method...

Great post, Michael—sounds like something I'd really enjoy! Nice vivid description, and it has the ring of truth, as if you've really captured the essence of the art.
 
cool - i'll jump in.

Although it's origins stem back well over 2000 years, Bando as it is practiced today in the American Bando Association has only been in existence since the end of World War One. Much of this ancient art had been lost or broken down into smaller subsets of skills such as Banshay (weapons use), Thaing (self defense), Naban (wrestling), or Bama Lethwei (the brutal Burmese counterpart to Muy Tai boxing).


A War Veteran and director of Physical Education for the Burmese Education Ministry named U Ba Than Gyi was unsatisfied with the state of Burma's once complete Martial system. At his invitation, Masters from all over Asia came to Burma to demonstrate their skills . However, they were not interested in just studying Chinese Kung-Fu or Indian wrestling. They were interested in the only thing that mattered to soldiers--what worked in real combat situations.


After gathering the few remaining masters of Burmese fighting arts together, the Athletic club, under U Ba Than Gyi's guidance, sought to fill in the missing gaps of knowledge with the skills and teachings of the other Asian Martial Arts. No system or style was excluded as long as they had something practical to contribute. This approach was summed up by U Ba Than Gyi in a saying that has become a central tenet of Bando;



"No one nation has a monopoly on sunlight; no one system has a monopoly on the truth."


As a result of this work, Bando has again become a complete martial system. Practitioners of modern Bando employ a wide variety of skills including Kicking and punching, knees and elbows, trapping and throwing, and grappling and groundfighting. The Modern Bando Student also trains in various weapons such as the short stick, long staff, Dha (sword), knife, and the soul of the Bando warrior, the Kukri. Upon reaching higher rankings, the Bando student may then begin studying one of up to sixteen animal systems. The nine animal systems of the American Bando Association are the Tiger, Eagle, Cobra, Viper, Boar, Bull, Python, Scorpion, and Panther.


Bando came to America with Dr. Maung Gyi, U Ba Than Gyi's son. Dr. Gyi taught at Ohio University in Athens Ohio and started a Bando Boxing club in the late 1960's. Later, that group was to form the American Bando Association.

To me, Bando is far too vast to simply describe what it looks like, but I will try to describe how it looks up to Black belt level. From there, the student has the option of either choosing an animal style or weapon to study for the rest of his / her life.

The philosophy of bando is to totally develop three aspects of martial living: Combat, Sport, and Art. Combat is taught in drills and is augmented through Sport - which is Full contact Kivckboxing, middle style free sparing, and forms competitions. The Art is in the forms and philosophies taught throughout the students life. Refining the movements till the weapon (body, blade, whatever) is free from thought is the goal of the Art - to transcend the purpose of the movements (to kill) until the movements instead create beauty and peace of mind.

The core of Bando (white through black belt) utilizes primarily striking techniques in it's empty hand fighting. The body sways as opposed to squared off styles such as TKD. Every block is a strike and vicea versa. Bando hurts. When first training, you will give your self bruises. A lot of them. Strikes are delivered through the target with intent to crush and bruise. In combat, the targets are life support and mobility. A bando preactitioner is taught initial evasion followed by an attack to the entire body of the opponent in a nonstop attack until the opponent is rendered totally incapacitated.

As the student learns the fundamentals of good footwork and balance, more and more grappling and trapping is introduced. The Bando Practiotioner is an in close fighter comfortable at all ranges. Strikes are performed with open and closed fist, fingers, elbows, head, shoulders, hips, knees, shins, and feet. Early training is heavily influenced by our kickboxing lineage. In Bando, you expect to get hit, but try to minimize the damage as much as possible (obviously) and continue the attack to the end.

In our weapons, the sway of the boody remains to develop crushing power. speed is important, but not at the expense of crushing force. Our forms and drills tend to break even the hardwood longstaffs quite often in training. I have no idea how many long staffs I have gone through in 26 years - around 50-100 I would guess. the goal is to destroy the enemies weapons.

Fancy is a word that has never once been used in the same sentence as Bando forms and weapons. We consider ourselves the Jeep of the MA world - utilitarian - function over form.

Hopefully, by the time your looking at black belt, you've got a good idea of what you're natuarlly good at and what interests you. At that point you can begin looking at the animal systems that contain what you are looking for. Each one is a complete system in and of itself that you can study for the rest of your life and most do just that. My instructor happend to be exposed to many animal styles and learned a gereat deal of the Cobra, Panther, Boar, Bull, Tiger and Eagle. I in turn was exposed to these animals as well, but it would take all night to explain these styles.:)

This great diversity is what I love about Bando, buit it is also it's big weakness. The Python guys might kick *** on the ground and because of their five plus years getting to black belt, they have a solid stand up skill set, but the Boar guys are BRUTAL in the ring. Their favorite quote is "Fighting in a phonebooth" - think Bama Lethwei with more elbows and stomps. and you are taking your life in your hands if you let 'em clinch ya. I am very glad that i was exposed to most animal styles in the way that I was. To try to sample the styles is at best a waste of time cause of their complexity, but thankfully, Bando is still so combat oriented that every style has drill sets that you can learn to develp the core skill sets - it's less art than combat training.

For example - the Tiger style as taught in ABA has a form that ends in a neck break for every single set. I trained in entries to that neck break as a drill. It took about an three hours to learn the entries and after training in them for about a month I was very proficient. Do I know the Tiger? Hell No! But I can use the primary attack well.

It is because of these drills and my belief in them that I train my students in drills from Tiger, Panther, Boar, and Cobra (I was blessed by the opportunity to train with Cobra master, Master Suskind for a while before became painfully obvious I didn't have the ability to ever be a master at the fastest and most target specific style) when they reach Brown belt, and employ python, wrestling and ground fighting skills from other arts in their early training.

After I reached black belt, I trained in Cobra, but really spent most of my time fighting until I reached the point that I found my calling - I'm a weapons guy. I focused on the Longstaff, Kukri, and Cane, though the short stick and knife were never neglected. The core principles remain for weapons as does the philosophy of contiuous attack, every block a strike, and body sway.
 
cool - i'll jump in.

Although it's origins stem back well over 2000 years, Bando as it is practiced today in the American Bando Association has only been in existence since the end of World War One...

Cool. I apparently have absolutely no knowledge or familiarity with Bando, because everything you described was completely new to me. thanks for sharing that.
 
Well. First I wanna say anything we say is a generalization. TMA runs the gambit from Sport Taekwondo to Kali, to South Mantis, to Taijutsu, which all have different "skillsets" and are not all easily lumped into a catagory just because of their long history... Saying a Tournament Sparring School of TKD is the same as a school of say Yagu Shinkage Ryu sword is assinine... so bear with my "generalizations"

I think MMA develops good athletes. The fighters it creates are fit, have the endurance for the long fight and are good at taking a hit, can hit hard most of them are good on the ground, and resiliant to the point of being able to be injured (as opposed to hurt) and keep fighting... they would dominate in a ring under the set of rules they train under, much like a boxer would.

TMA? First off, I think TMA in general develops more... passive... fighters than MMA, the mindset not being "YEAH LETS KICK SOME ***" but "Lets have a peaceful day, help others, and use my art as a last resort". Id say TMA does more weapons work both with the use and defense of weapons, works more often on multiple attackers, situational awareness, and skills for dealing with things outside the ring. (an example would be how many TMA schools teach what to do if an attacker grabs your purse, vs How many MMA schools teach that kind of thing.)

But again, its all generalization... I know some TMA guys who, sadly couldn't survive a street fight against an angry 12 year old girl, but I know some TMA guys who I seriously believe would **** up an MMA guy if they were on the street, and HAVE ****ed up average street thugs. By the converse, I know there are MMA guys who look for street effectivness, and balance their training for both, and have taken care of buisness in the bar... and there are MMA guys who would be all over your Joe TMA guy in the ring, but probably die if they faced a determined mugger, or serious TMA guy with a knife...
 
Well. First I wanna say anything we say is a generalization. TMA runs the gambit from Sport Taekwondo to Kali, to South Mantis, to Taijutsu, which all have different "skillsets" and are not all easily lumped into a catagory just because of their long history... Saying a Tournament Sparring School of TKD is the same as a school of say Yagu Shinkage Ryu sword is assinine... so bear with my "generalizations"

I think MMA develops good athletes. The fighters it creates are fit, have the endurance for the long fight and are good at taking a hit, can hit hard most of them are good on the ground, and resiliant to the point of being able to be injured (as opposed to hurt) and keep fighting... they would dominate in a ring under the set of rules they train under, much like a boxer would.

TMA? First off, I think TMA in general develops more... passive... fighters than MMA, the mindset not being "YEAH LETS KICK SOME ***" but "Lets have a peaceful day, help others, and use my art as a last resort". Id say TMA does more weapons work both with the use and defense of weapons, works more often on multiple attackers, situational awareness, and skills for dealing with things outside the ring. (an example would be how many TMA schools teach what to do if an attacker grabs your purse, vs How many MMA schools teach that kind of thing.)

But again, its all generalization... I know some TMA guys who, sadly couldn't survive a street fight against an angry 12 year old girl, but I know some TMA guys who I seriously believe would **** up an MMA guy if they were on the street, and HAVE ****ed up average street thugs. By the converse, I know there are MMA guys who look for street effectivness, and balance their training for both, and have taken care of buisness in the bar... and there are MMA guys who would be all over your Joe TMA guy in the ring, but probably die if they faced a determined mugger, or serious TMA guy with a knife...


:asian: :asian: :asian: :asian: :asian: :asian:
 
I think that the very question assumes the perspective of MMA. Meaning, you take one thing, moder, sport-oriented, heavily grappling influenced so-called "Mixed Martial Arts", and you contrast it with everything that is not that, and call it "Traditional Martial Arts." You could just as well say "Wing Chun vs. everything that is not Wing Chun." See my point? The categories are drawn from a biased perspective to begin with.

Competition-based martial arts are nothing new. Are traditional English pugilism and American Catch Wrestling traditional or mixed martial arts? What is Gracie JuJitsu, on it's own?

Within the category of "Traditional Martial Arts" exists several categories that could easily stand on their own as something distinct. There's, within Japanese martial arts, Koryu and Gendai Budo. Wouldn't the difference between, let's say Kano's Judo and Takeda's Daito Ryu be at least as great as the difference between "Traditional and Mixed"? I think so, and I think that differnce is more meaningful.

A martial art can be stripped of all cultural and historical context, claim to incorporate "whatever works", use colloquial, descriptive names for techniques and train in a milquetoast manner, resulting in little combat effectiveness. Another can have centuries of tradition, incorporate a complete philosophy and lifestyle, have roots in a particular culture, and emphasize the physical and mental ability to actually make the art work. Which one is "Traditional"?

"Mixed Martial Arts" is a training methodology that produces very good fighters on a consistent basis. It is not a martial art or a category of martial arts. Within that methodology, any number of things can be taught. Traditional Martial Arts can be hundreds of different styles, trained in countless different ways.

I just think that the question itself leaves much to be desired.
 
But again, its all generalization... I know some TMA guys who, sadly couldn't survive a street fight against an angry 12 year old girl...

Have you ever faced an angry 12 year old girl? terrifying...:xtrmshock

great post
 
I think that the very question assumes the perspective of MMA. Meaning, you take one thing, moder, sport-oriented, heavily grappling influenced so-called "Mixed Martial Arts", and you contrast it with everything that is not that, and call it "Traditional Martial Arts." You could just as well say "Wing Chun vs. everything that is not Wing Chun." See my point? The categories are drawn from a biased perspective to begin with.

Ussually we speak of arts as divided into sport arts, TMAs, and RBSD systems. One particular sport art is MMA, one particular TMA is Wing Chun. I see nothing biased about comparing one art to a category of others arts, even arts that are quite varied even if they have integral simularities.

Competition-based martial arts are nothing new. Are traditional English pugilism and American Catch Wrestling traditional or mixed martial arts?

They would be sports arts that are not themselves MMA.

What is Gracie JuJitsu, on it's own?

GJJ.

Within the category of "Traditional Martial Arts" exists several categories that could easily stand on their own as something distinct. There's, within Japanese martial arts, Koryu and Gendai Budo. Wouldn't the difference between, let's say Kano's Judo and Takeda's Daito Ryu be at least as great as the difference between "Traditional and Mixed"? I think so, and I think that differnce is more meaningful.

Well, within the sport arts there is a simularly large difference between boxing and catch wrestling, so I see little reason why there is a problem.

A martial art can be stripped of all cultural and historical context, claim to incorporate "whatever works", use colloquial, descriptive names for techniques and train in a milquetoast manner, resulting in little combat effectiveness. Another can have centuries of tradition, incorporate a complete philosophy and lifestyle, have roots in a particular culture, and emphasize the physical and mental ability to actually make the art work. Which one is "Traditional"?

The second. The first, minus the part about "combat effectiveness" describes any sport art.

"Mixed Martial Arts" is a training methodology that produces very good fighters on a consistent basis. It is not a martial art or a category of martial arts. Within that methodology, any number of things can be taught. Traditional Martial Arts can be hundreds of different styles, trained in countless different ways.

I just think that the question itself leaves much to be desired.

MMA ussually describes a specific training set. Think of MMA as just a name that covers a modern hybrid martial art that consists of either the big four (western boxing, western wrestling, muay thai, BJJ) OR any combination of arts that results in approximately the same techniques and training practices as those four arts.
 
Back
Top