Why do TMAs have more difficulty in the ring/octagon?

[Kung Fu Wang]

No one 'needs' forms. Boxers don't have forms, wrestlers don't have forms, MMA fighters don't have forms. They don't need forms for what they do.

Not all TMA have form. My Shuai-Chiao (Chinese wrestling) system is a TMA but it has no form. The Yi Chuan system also has no form. The Judo system also has no form.

I was a striker before I was a grappler. After I have trained as a grappler, my opinion about form has changed big time. My current interest is the integration of kick, punch, lock, throw, and ground game. I don't have time to worry about form any more. I'm a TMA guy outside, but I'm a MMA guy inside (I'm 100% in favor of "cross training").

 

[drop bear]

Not all TMA have form. My Shuai-Chiao (Chinese wrestling) system is a TMA but it has no form. The Yi Chuan system also has no form. The Judo system also has no form.

I was a striker before I was a grappler. After I have trained as a grappler, my opinion about form has changed big time. My current interest is the integration of kick, punch, lock, throw, and ground game. I don't have time to worry about form any more. I'm a TMA guy outside, but I'm a MMA guy inside (I'm 100% in favor of "cross training").

Judo kata.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K7vdLP71BAI

 

[Hanzou]

When it comes to most TCMA they have basic answers to grappling or take downs but never concentrated on advancing it since rolling around on a battle field isn't the smartest thing to do.

The main answer to takedowns and grappling is their weapon training.

Don't get me wrong I love grappling arts and consider it part of my foundation along side with my TMA.

Well not all martial arts were created for the battlefield. I can name several Kung Fu and Karate styles that were not created for the battlefield, but were created for personal protection. It amazes me that they wouldn't have an answer for grapplers. It also seems weird that not being allowed to do certain "dirty attacks" would render their art useless.

When you see Rickson Gracie in Vale Tudo, its truly amazing how much larger his opponents were than he was. These guys were allowed to strike him, gouge his eyes, or grab his balls, yet he still prevailed.

 

[Chris Parker]

In another thread, a poster informed me that Brazilian Jiujitsu and other grappling arts had a distinct advantage in the first UFC, which caused many TMA practitioners to get easily defeated in the early UFC competitions. Clearly this advantage has continued 20 years later, because TMA is still absent from the curriculum of many MMA practitioners, who choose Muay Thai kickboxing or Bjj over Wing Chun, Eagle Claw Kung Fu, Aikido, or Shorin Ryu Karate.

Why is this the case? What makes some styles have such a distinct disadvantage in combat sports, while other styles tend to dominate?

Context and emphasis. They're not designed for it, they don't care about it, it is nothing to do with the way they're set up.

You're still wanting to apply a single context and meaning to all systems, and it just doesn't work that way. You might as well as why doesn't everyone learn French because you had a great holiday in Paris… ignoring that other people don't want to go to France, but want to go to South Aftrica… or Japan… or Bali… or not go anywhere at all.

The short answer is training method. The early UFCs certainly highlighted the ground grappling range, and that wasn't just with regard to TMA, you had legit kickboxers and boxers (combat sports specialists) who just hadn't studied the range losing as well.

Groups that train their techniques against resisting opponents are generally going to do better than those groups that don't.

Yep, but you have to look at why that training method is chosen… realistically, the training method of MMA is geared towards success and application in MMA… non-MMA training isn't…

I definitely see your point, but all things being equal, why can't a karate practitioner simply out maneuver a grappler and punch and kick them into submission? I mean, there's a difference between rules that completely eliminate your ability to fight (like a grappler not being allowed to grapple), but what rules limit a Karate or Kung Fu practitioner from beating the crap out of an opponent with footwork, kicks, and punches?

Why do you think they can't?

Here's the thing… there's a big difference between applying such a tactic in a ring, which is designed for a competition with a focus or emphasis on ground work, and is therefore softer, and slower than other surfaces, against an opponent who knows you're going to be actively fighting them, and applying it in the outside world…

Well why doesn't TMA work in the ring by default? Why do I need to do extra work to make a fighting art work in an environment with light restrictions? If a TMA training method is to stop an adversary with a punch or a kk, what exactly is preventing this same fighter from doing it in the ring as opposed to the street? Does the inability to strike the neck or the groin render some TMA styles completely useless?

If we took this in reverse, would anyone here doubt that Floyd Mayweather could knock someone out in a streetfight, just like he can in the ring? Does anyone doubt that Rickson Gracie could choke out someone outside the cage as well as inside? Anyone think that Ronda Rousey couldn't throw some drunk a-hole to the ground and snap his arm? So why can the "sport arts" translate to various applications, but a TMA cannot?

Because fighting ain't fighting. There are huge discrepancies between different types/forms of conflict and fighting, and no single form addresses, or even attempts to address, all of them… or even many of them… let alone addresses them equally.

Depends if you train against being taken down.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dVKxEdCdBog
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TRvgw1qIqE0

Or is they are already in ..
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yTNDHodUISw
:asian:

Yeah… gotta say, mate, I'm not fond of any of those… but more importantly, are we classing those as "TMA's"?

I'll say the "solo form training" is the major problem.

When you learn a form, it will become your burden for the rest of your life. The day that you throw away your forms, the day that you will be free. You can then concentrate on your

- kick,
- punch,
- lock,
- throw,
- ground work,
- ...

"Burden"? "Free"? I recognise the words, but this makes no sense…

In other words, this is completely wrong, and misses every single reason for forms existing. They aren't to teach technique… they're to teach tactical application of technique. Your approach is missing a lot…

Well yes, because Mayweather would have to deal with grappling, and Rickson wouldn't be allowed to grapple. However, NHB rules don't limit something like Kung Fu the way boxing rules would limit Rickson Gracie. Also, we all know that Boxing is heavily limited to hand techniques. TMAs are supposed to be complete systems of fighting, so they should cover all the bases, including grappling defense.

Am I wrong?

Yes. In almost every way possible.

TMA's are not "supposed to be complete systems of fighting"… I have no idea where you got that leap of illogic from… there's no rule or idea that they should "cover all the bases"… that, realistically, is a fallacy of modern systems… including MMA… which, itself, is missing huge areas.

Well no. I was merely pointing out that martial athletes are good fighters outside the cage as well as in. If you're a good fighter, you're a good fighter period. If the goal of a TMA is to develop a good fighter, why would a couple of rules hinder their abilities?

Again, extreme rule sets like Boxing, TKD, Judo are understandable, but we don't even see strong TMA representation in MMA/NHB where the rule sets aren't all that prohibitive for martial arts.

I train very traditional systems… how do you think I'd go in a true no-holds-barred situation, a real "no rules" contest…?

Realistically, though, you're still missing 99% of the reality of anything outside of your experience… which is fine… but you might want to start listening to those who do know this area a bit better than you do… the reality is that you simply can't use a single broad brush for all "TMA's"… they have far more differences than similarities, and far, far more than you seem to realise.

I think the sprawl is a wee bit more reliable than those counters.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vfmfM357Sdw

That's more like it.

I was actually explaining this defence to my guys a month or so back… and pointing out why we'd never consider such an action. In fact, we'd do something that you'd be told to never do in a competitive form… because it makes more sense, and is far safer (in our context) than a "sprawl" in this form…

I learned my 1st from when I was 7 years old. That was 60 years ago. I have learned more than 50 forms in my life. I understand the purpose of forms, but I still do not believe that form training has any "combat" value (it has health value and no argument on that).

The following training program is much more effective.

One can use

- partner training to "develop" skill,
- sparring/wrestling to "test" skill,
- equipment training to "enhance" skill,
- solo drill training to "polish" skill.

I can write a book about "why form training is a big waste of time from the combat point of view". But that will have nothing to do with this thread discussion.

Please don't. You'd be wrong before you started the first word… and we already have Antony Cummins doing that enough…

I used to train at a Relson Gjj school, and I agree that Relson and Rickson are moving more towards a TMA slant than other Bjj schools. I was actually going to make a thread about that in the Bjj forum, but decided to start this one first. I love what both of them are doing, and their philosophy about Bjj being more than guard jumping and butt scooting.

That said, there's a pretty big difference with how a Relson/Rickson Gracie school does MA and a TMA school does MA. Rickson and Relson want to move Bjj towards its roots, which is simpler, more brutal, and a lot less pretty. They're not advocating the practice of using 16th century farm equipment, and dozens of pre-arranged forms.

What do you think a TMA actually is? Cause, honestly… this is just a list of poorly understood stereotypes, with little basis or insight, let alone reality.

Well that's fairly morbid. I believe the goal of most TMA systems is to offer an answer for as many situations as possible. I find it hard to believe that a system as old as Wing Chun for example doesn't offer an answer against a grappling opponent.

You're missing the context (oh, and I'm assuming you're also using the deeply flawed definition of grappling = ground fighting, yeah?). Still.

Kung fu works if it's trained against resistance and with a mind toward the ring. Cung le is a badass and I wish he'd made the transition to Mma as a younger man. But Kung fu alone won't work. You have to supplement the tma with a another tma, either cacc or freestyle wrestling, Bjj or judo.

Same with Karate, tkd, boxing or any other striking art.

The converse is also true.

Personally, the biggest impediment is mindset. My opinion is that it is common for people who train in some styles to seek out their holes. And uncommon in others.

"Impediment", Steve? No… not an impediment at all… anymore than the mindset of focusing on ground work is an impediment for BJJ practitioners… I mean, it really doesn't help them be good swordsmen…

My only issue with that is Korean and Japanese karate practitioners also consider themselves traditional stylists.

Why aren't they traditional stylists?

I have no problem with a takedown defense like that. My issue is the idea of defending a shoot with a kick to the face. I think that's a pretty laughable TD defense. I didnt get a detailed look at the second one, but that looked iffy as well.

To be honest, I agree with this… for a range of reasons… including that it only really works if the attacker keeps his head/upper body pretty upright, and is hesitant as he comes in… the second one would be quite a handful if the attacker didn't stop as soon as the defence started as well, for the record…

I would also point out that (here in the states at least) wrestling and American football are very common and popular sports taken up by the male population in secondary school and college. Football is the most popular sport in the US by a country mile. Thus, there's a higher than normal chance of running into someone who is highly trained in tackles and takedowns here in the US.

True… which is part of the culture there… and then influences the forms of violence found (the idea of one guy grabbing around the waist of the other, lifting them, and either slamming them, or running them backwards, is far more common in the US than here&#8230, which is starting to get into the idea of differing contexts…

You won't need form if you just train drills. Your drills may come from your forms but it doesn't have to be. After you have leaned a form, you take it apart, understand it, and then put it back together any way you want as long as it makes sense to you. The best lesson that I have learned in my life is one day my teacher told me that, "Form was designed for teaching and leaning only. It was not designed for training."

You use "partner drill" to develop your skill. You will learn your

- body alignment,
- power generation,
- footwork,
- ...

at this stage.

you then train "solo drill" at home when partner is not available. Since you have already developed your skill, you just use your solo drill to "polish" some minor detail that you may not pay enough attention when you train with partner.

Since your "solo drill" is just your "partner drill without partner", when you have learned the "partner drills", you will get "solo drills" by default. If you link your "solo drills" in a sequence, you will have your form. This form that you have created will truly belong to you.

I had created the following form many years ago. Do I train it? No. Do I ask my students to train it, No. It just serves as a text book, no more and no less. The first 13 moves are the 13 postures. Since the order of those postures are not important, there exist no value to train those 13 moves in sequence. The rest of 24 moves has many combos in it. It makes sense to train

- combo A as move 1, move 2,
- combo B as move 3, move 4, and move 5.

Since combo A and combo B has no logic connection, to train combo A and combo B together as move 1, move 2, move 3, move 4, move 5 is not necessary.

Uh… okay… that's not a form. It's a string of movements. If you think that's what a "form" is, then you really never learnt any… you only learnt mechanical sequences.

What if your instructors and his instructors aren't mistaken? Isn't it possible that you're mistaken?

He's not…

But grappling is not exactly a new idea either. I wonder why they left it out?

Look at the re created medievil sword fighting. It is not like that don't have the opportunity to grapple to their advantage.

What makes you think it's not there? (Again, I'm using grappling to actually mean "grappling"… not "ground fighting"… but even so, the question stands. Of course, if you're thinking of that joke of an MMA undercard with the armour and weapons that you posted a little while back… I'm not touching that mess&#8230

Not all TMA have form. My Shuai-Chiao (Chinese wrestling) system is a TMA but it has no form. The Yi Chuan system also has no form. The Judo system also has no form.

Judo has lots of "forms".

Itsutsu no Kata - 5 forms.

Koshiki no Kata - 21 forms in two sections.

Kime no Kata - 20 forms in 2 categories, four sections.

Ju no Kata - 15 forms in three sections.

Nage no Kata - 16 forms in five sections (shown by drop bear in the previous post).

Katame no Kata - 4 forms.

Goshin no Kata - 21 forms in five sections.

Go no Sen no Kata - 12 forms in three sections.

Go no Kata - 10 forms.

In addition to the above, there are many more forms found in various sections, such as Nage Ura no Kata, developed by Mifune, Joshi Goshinho (Women's Defence), Renhoko (arresting techniques), and more.

 

[Steve]

"Impediment", Steve? No… not an impediment at all… anymore than the mindset of focusing on ground work is an impediment for BJJ practitioners… I mean, it really doesn't help them be good swordsmen…

Yes, Chris. Impediment... Chris. Ellipses... Much?

Some styles encourage exploration and testing outside of the style. Others don't. A Bjj practitioner would say, "man, if I want to be a good swordsman, I should seek out some instruction in a style that specializes in swordplay."

Many who self identify as TMA'ist would say, "what I'm learning is fine. Just ask me and I'll tell you."

Cung le was a sanda guy but I would say he's less like a TMA'ist than a boxer who is so invested in his skills and ego that he's afraid to acknowledge his skill gaps. Tma is a mindset that discourages exploration, innovation and independent validation of skill development.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chris Parker]

What I meant was that it's only an impediment if you're looking for the training to be designed for something it's not… similar to the idea that studying French in an impediment to learning Japanese.

In other words, if a system is in no way concerned with being involved in MMA, not gearing themselves to MMA in their training isn't an impediment. It's simply a different approach to a different situation and context.

EDIT: Oh, and for the record, I'd vehemently disagree with the idea that traditional martial arts discourage exploration, independent validation of skill development, and so on… it just might not be in a form that you recognise.

 

[Cirdan]

My only issue with that is Korean and Japanese karate practitioners also consider themselves traditional stylists.

Indeed, how can I call myself a traditional stylist when I train Wado Ryu, an art that is a fairly recent invention?

Simple, we haven`t thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Wado`s roots in okinawa, china and japanese ju jitsu have not been forgotten and those are reflected in our training every day.

 

[K-man]

What if your instructors and his instructors aren't mistaken? Isn't it possible that you're mistaken?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

With what I saw first hand, and trained, in Okinawa, no.
:asian:

 

[drop bear]

Yes, Chris. Impediment... Chris. Ellipses... Much?

Some styles encourage exploration and testing outside of the style. Others don't. A Bjj practitioner would say, "man, if I want to be a good swordsman, I should seek out some instruction in a style that specializes in swordplay."

Many who self identify as TMA'ist would say, "what I'm learning is fine. Just ask me and I'll tell you."

Cung le was a sanda guy but I would say he's less like a TMA'ist than a boxer who is so invested in his skills and ego that he's afraid to acknowledge his skill gaps. Tma is a mindset that discourages exploration, innovation and independent validation of skill development.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cross training in line with x principles. I have read this as a theory before. So if I did karate but wanted to grapple the grappling has to fit in the Tennant's of karate. Rather than just work on its own merits.

Like your bjj guy who learns sword fighting but demands it includes butt flopping.

This is why anti grapple is generally so universally awful.

 

[drop bear]

What I meant was that it's only an impediment if you're looking for the training to be designed for something it's not… similar to the idea that studying French in an impediment to learning Japanese.

In other words, if a system is in no way concerned with being involved in MMA, not gearing themselves to MMA in their training isn't an impediment. It's simply a different approach to a different situation and context.

EDIT: Oh, and for the record, I'd vehemently disagree with the idea that traditional martial arts discourage exploration, independent validation of skill development, and so on… it just might not be in a form that you recognise.

You don't think that is just opting out?

I am happy to acknowledge that I am not as good as a relevant specialist in a certain area. So if I am out boxed wrestled or bjjed. It is not because my training is not geared for those things. It is because they are better at them.

These are basic skills that should transfer over. Or the basic skills are suspect.

So I should be able to spar with a chunner under chun rules and hold my own. There would be no style reason why I couldn't.

 

[Chris Parker]

No. In fact, that completely misses the point.

 

[drop bear]

No. In fact, that completely misses the point.

But a mmaer who does not train for boxing can still box.

So can a kick boxer, so can plenty of striking styles. Tma or otherwise. So even though they may not specifically train for a rule set does not equal an inability to handle competition.

There is definatley an overlap there where one set of skills apply to more than one situation.

 

[Argus]

So I should be able to spar with a chunner under chun rules and hold my own. There would be no style reason why I couldn't.

Sure, I'll chisau you! Hold out your arms now. Let's see how far you get

 

[drop bear]

Sure, I'll chisau you! Hold out your arms now. Let's see how far you get

You guys do normal striking as well though.

But yeah I will certainly give it a crack.

 

[Argus]

You guys do normal striking as well though.

But yeah I will certainly give it a crack.

Yep. My point though is that we don't really train to spar. There are some WC guys out there who can hold their own in a sparring context, but only because they've trained with that purpose in mind.

In the same way I might have some trouble in a sparring context, I think you would find a chisau context equally challenging and unfamiliar.

On the other hand, I'm confident, despite not having much sparring practice, my training would serve me if I ever needed it in a confrontation. Or, heck, if I put it to its traditional use and entered a 1950's challenge match.

 

[Blindside]

Yep. My point though is that we don't really train to spar. There are some WC guys out there who can hold their own in a sparring context, but only because they've trained with that purpose in mind.

In the same way I might have some trouble in a sparring context, I think you would find a chisau context equally challenging and unfamiliar.

On the other hand, I'm confident, despite not having much sparring practice, my training would serve me if I ever needed it in a confrontation. Or, heck, if I put it to its traditional use and entered a 1950's challenge match.

How about a 2010's challenge match? What changed in the past 60 years?

 

[Hanzou]

Context and emphasis. They're not designed for it, they don't care about it, it is nothing to do with the way they're set up.

Please explain how a fighting art isn't designed for fighting. That's what you're doing in a ringed competiton; Fighting. Certainly not every martial art is suited to compete in a NHB style battle, however if you're practicing any form of unarmed combat, there's no reason your style shouldn't be fully capable of fighting in an arena.

What also makes this argument dubious is the fact that several traditional MA styles revolve around the supposed fighting prowess of their founders in similar types of events.

Why do you think they can't?

Because they don't. Imagine if a TMA practioner dominated an MMA tournament. That praciticioner would be set for life. I find it hard to believe that every TMA pracitioner in the entire world has no desire for fortune or fame, or to enhance the health of their style of choice if they had the ability to do so.

Anyone remember this dubious video showing two kung fu masters fighting in a ring?

Too much form work?

 

[Argus]

How about a 2010's challenge match? What changed in the past 60 years?

Well, people don't like fighting bareknuckle on concrete these days -- and for good reason. You'd also be facing a different plethora of styles, though western boxers were common participants.

You can read Wong Shun Leung's comments on Beimo, if you like. He was boxer himself before taking up Wing Chun, and fought in the ring as well as in challenge matches, so he would sometimes compare the two.

 

[Danny T]

In another thread, a poster informed me that Brazilian Jiujitsu and other grappling arts had a distinct advantage in the first UFC, which caused many TMA practitioners to get easily defeated in the early UFC competitions. Clearly this advantage has continued 20 years later, because TMA is still absent from the curriculum of many MMA practitioners, who choose Muay Thai kickboxing or Bjj over Wing Chun, Eagle Claw Kung Fu, Aikido, or Shorin Ryu Karate.

Why is this the case? What makes some styles have such a distinct disadvantage in combat sports, while other styles tend to dominate?

First off in the ‘first UFC’ the participants were Selected specifically for their lack of ground skills but one exception, Ken Shamrock. Ken was the only Not Certain due to his high school wrestling and American & Japanese professional wrestling experiences as well as 3 Pancrase events. Ken was the only real possible threat based upon the rules of UFC 1. He probably underestimated Gracie as well as fought after coming off a fight in Japan 4 days prior.

As to TMA being absent from the curriculum of most MMA practitioners, I feel the number one reason is because those who train and practice for MMA actually practice fighting against another who is also practicing the same within the rules of that event. They actually fight during much of their practicing and most all of their practicing is specific to the event.


Most, (note: I didn’t say all) most TMA schools, instructors, and practitioners Do Not practice for real fighting against an opponent who is punching, kicking, or attempting to put you on the ground with full intent. PERIOD!!!.

Some do and those that do have people who can truly use their skills. Those that don’t do it are only learning to play at fighting. If TMA practitioners wrestled, rolled, practiced, sparred using their skills against someone like they were preparing for a mma event their skill, abilities, and success in mma events would be much higher.

 

[K-man]

Not all TMA have form. My Shuai-Chiao (Chinese wrestling) system is a TMA but it has no form. The Yi Chuan system also has no form. The Judo system also has no form.

I was a striker before I was a grappler. After I have trained as a grappler, my opinion about form has changed big time. My current interest is the integration of kick, punch, lock, throw, and ground game. I don't have time to worry about form any more. I'm a TMA guy outside, but I'm a MMA guy inside (I'm 100% in favor of "cross training").

Cross training is essential, in my mind, not only to understand where others are coming from, but to understand your own art.

Yeah… gotta say, mate, I'm not fond of any of those… but more importantly, are we classing those as "TMA's"?

First one, a bit hard unless you are absolutely sure of what's happening, second and third ones are ok as long as you react soon enough with the third one being perhaps the best option if you have to go to the ground.

TMA? Sure. Krav is a TMA in the context of this thread, isn't it?