I can't help but notice all of the TMA Vs. MMA threads popping up that revert to the "my style rocks/yours sucks" mentality. Very few good points are ever made on them (although there is the occasional insight that makes the non-ego-maniacs think, which is why I have read through a few). Well, I'll take a risk and hope that I can spark an insightful thread that does not revert to ego-maniacs and internet tough guys... What I see is most people don't have a good grasp on the difference between MMA and TMA. It is a blurred line at best, if not a non-existent line forced upon the martial art community as a whole through advertising and kept in place through style bashing/etc. There is support for both arguments (and much for in between), and a lot comes down to whether MMA is to be considered a style or a sport. Regardless of what you believe in regards to the differences, you cannot simply have MMA without TMA. What would there be to mix? The arguments that then stem from this grey/false separation center around superiority. The aliveness and realism/effectivness of MMA is compared to other arts. I find the goal of proving superiority to be open to much interpretation. Superior in what sense? The two most common argues are: In fighting? In self defense? Fighting is loosely defined, and I don't want to argue about the rules/etc of sanctioned fighting tournaments. I will focus on the latter. It all depends on how one is to train. And lets remember, there are multiple ways to skin a cat. Katas can be used to teach and aid in technique memorization, sparring, bag work, slow partner work, fighting under rules, etc. are all training methods with their own strengths and weaknesses. Here I find a lot of people arguing about how aliveness is the end all/be all. It is not. HERE is a article worth reading about said topic. In summary it asserts that one relies on pure technique in a self defense scenario, and that technique can be developed in a variety of ways, alive or not. After all, self defense situations are hardly prolonged fights to the death, but rather get out alive scenarios. There are some good points in this article. The way I see it is the more time spent in each kind of training leads to better preparation, as all have their strengths and weaknesses. Still, no one can be perfectly prepared for the evils of true violence. Some days people are able to rise to the occasion, other days they are unable to move from fear/analysis paralysis. The best advice I have gotten was on another forum by an officer stating "people generally expect too much out of their training." In summary, I find the whole MMA Vs. TMA debate to be pointless (especially when attempting to separate the two into neat little categories), just as style superiority arguments backed by aliveness. Knowledge can be obtained through any instructional method, when taught correctly. Sure, some arts can be learned and applied faster than others, but this does not make them superior. This is my short take on this whole internet battle of MMA vs. TMA. I do not want to write a book on this topic. I am sure that I missed some items of importance and need to explain a few concepts more. Please chime in with your opinions!