1 more try at MMA & TMA discussion (w/rules!)

[zDom]

OK, let’s try this again.

This is my thread, so we are going to do it my way (er..I hope ). So many attempts at discussing these issues get bogged down by the same ol’ arguments, so I’m going to lay some ground rules in the hope we can have a civil, productive, mutually beneficial discussion.

(Don’t make me push that Report to Moderator button!! )

Ground rules:

1) NO discussion/arguments relating to the burden of proof. For the sake of this discussion, anecdotes and personal experience will be taken at face value. No requirement for claims to be substantiated by videotape “proof” although specific videotaped fights MAY be referred to as examples.

2) NO discussions on whose training methods are superior/inferior or effective/ineffective. For the sake of discussion we will assume that everybody is training hard and well. There are strong and weak practitioners in ANY school, kwan, gymnasium, fighting system.

3) NO discussions on what is fighting and what isn’t. For the sake of this discussion, we can assume that anything from point-style sparring to wrestling to NHB has lessons that are applicable to real self defense situations while none completely replicate what may or may not happen outside of competition.

4) Just because we haven’t SEEN it used on video does NOT, for the sake of this discussion, automatically mean that it is therefore proven not effective. We will assume the possibility that it simply hasn’t been tried by someone with the skill to make it work.

5) I’m probably missing a rule that will sidetrack the discussion. Those sidetrack issues aren’t allowed either

6) If you have an issue with any of these ground rules, please take them up in a new thread. Bring my attention to it and I’ll argue them there. This is not the time nor place to second-guess the above assumptions.

Now on to the TOPICS:

a) What can traditional martial artists learn from the recent mixed martial art systems?

b) In what ways could mixed martial arts be improved by concepts from traditional martial arts not yet being used?

I’ll kick things off with some thoughts I’ve had on these subjects but never got around to discussing, having been sidetracked by other discussions.

-=-=-=-=-

Relating to a) What can traditional martial artists learn from the recent mixed martial art systems?

• MMA is a great game for training the transitions back and forth between different fighting ranges - kicking range, punching range, stand-up grappling/throwing, ground grappling.

Games that cater to kickers, such as point-style and Olympic sparring, kickboxing, etc., can establish some bad habits: if you know the guy is not allowed to grab your leg and throw you, you are much more likely to use kicks in ways that might get you hurt in self defense situations.

The MMA game shows the importance of TIMING when using kicks:
Wrong time = tossed on your butt HARD.
Right time = easy end to a conflict (such as GSP’s well-timed roundhouse to the head in fight vs Hughes, or turning back kick in a previous fight).

•*MMA has also demonstrated well how devastating Muay Thai-type knee strikes can be. As it doesn’t take a WHOLE lot of training to pull a head down into an uprising knee (as compared with learning a jump-spinning wheel kick, for example), I think learning to watch out for, avoid and block the upward knee to the head is something all martial artists should think about in their training. I would love to hear comments from others on this subject.

• MMA has also shown just how BAD letting someone get in the mount position on top of you can be. Being “grounded and pounded” on the street could end up being a ticket to the hospital with no referee there to stop things. Training to avoid letting someone achieve the mount and how to quickly get them off of you, I think, is something else all martial artists should seriously think about.

• MMA has also shown how useful various “submissions” can be such as the rear naked choke, armbar, and kimuras. RNC and armbars are techniques I have always considered to be very effective tools. MMA matches have demonstrated I was not wrong in my opinion/theory.

I put quotes around submissions because, in self defense, these can cause devastating damage. Dislocating an elbow or shoulder may put them in shock, and will definitely make them less of a threat should they continue to attack. RNC can put someone to sleep or worse, if held for a long time, can cause brain damage or even kill someone.

If you don’t have these in your toolbox, I recommend GETTING them.

• Conditioning IS important. It doesn’t matter how good your techniques are if you “gas out” and are unable to use them. Maybe not AS important in self defense as in a ring, as self defense situations tend to be shorter, but I subscribe to the “better safe than sorry” line of thinking.

• One thing I think Pride Fighting has demonstrated, since it seems to let things go a bit further than UFC, is that “it ain’t over till it’s over.” I mean, I have seen some fighters weather a devastating flurry either during standup or during a ground and pound and, by keeping their head and blocking/covering, keep conscious and turn the fight around, even coming up with a win sometimes.

Not to be confused with being “saved by the bell,” but then again, there may not be a bell in self defense situations, but very often there is a time limit in that law enforcement or friends or even compassionate strangers may arrive to intervene.

• One of the weaknesses I see in the MMA game (but is probably unavoidable due to safety issues) is how the mat mitigates the effect of throws. In MMA matches, a throw seems to be merely a means to an end: get them to the ground for the ground and pound or submission.

On most surfaces a throw, IMO, would be a fight-ending technique. Not always, but many times. Especially with an untrained attacker who is not used to keeping his head from bouncing off the ground upon impact.

Not talking about some of the less ballistic takedowns, mind you, where both people end up tumbling to the ground. But the judo-type throws, scoops, body slams, suplexes, etc., where there is a hard impact on solid surfaces are devastating.

...

Moving on to topic b) In what ways could mixed martial arts be improved by concepts from traditional martial arts not yet being used?

• I don’t see a lot of effective feinting used. By effective, I mean feints that REALLY make the opponent think they are going to be hit by the feint but in actuality open them up to your REAL intention.

If you truly deceive your opponent with a feint, they will be VERY vulnerable to that real technique.

Great example is GSP’s recent knockout of Hughes. He never even SAW the kick — and the ones you don’t see usually hit you harder. MUCH harder.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is during stand-up in MMA matches almost nobody is using body shots. Everything is going to the head (with the exception of the Muay Thai leg shots).

In my ITF-type fighting I’ve noticed that what works for boxers also works for me: if you make them fear those body shots, their hands will drop and open them up for a clear, hard shot to the head.

• I am not seeing a lot of attacks in MMA matches which go after the solar plexus. While training abdominal strength can reduce the size of this target, I find there is always a quarter-sized target to hit which can seriously affect their ability to breathe.

This goes back to the above point: even if you don’t completely knock the wind out of them, if you can just stun the diaphragm enough to get them to drop their hands, that head shot becomes much easier to land.

• Powerful kicking is a useful tool. Slapping MT kicks into the legs can “chip away” at them or weaken the knees. But during the last UFC, an undercard fight showed that one powerful, committed kick to the leg can drop someone.

Again, going back to the above comments about body shots (keeping in mind that you must have timing to safely pull them off), a powerful blast to the body can end a fight as quickly as a kick to the head.

With the exception of the turning back kick I saw GSP throw, I really haven’t seen this tool used much, if at all, in the UFC/Pride/IFL matches I've watched over the years.

This power kick to the gut could, I think, be achieved easily enough in the very same way the fighter in the recent UFC set up the power roundhouse to the leg: he feinted a shot to the head and unleased the kick.

So feint the shot to head (to bring their arms up, preventing a block), and of course timing to make sure a shoot or leg-grab doesn’t happen, and blasting the ribs or solar plexus could very well end them or knock enough wind out of them to enable a finishing flurry.


=-=-=-=-=

That pretty much is my thoughts in a (rather lengthy) nutshell.

Now I’m very interested in hearing from other TMAists (JMAs, CMAs, FMAs, etc.) as well as MMAists (and other fighting arts that are typically grouped with them such as wrestling, Sambo, etc.)

I hope this works out well and we can finally get to sharing things from differing perspectives as opposed to getting bogged down in the same old arguments.

 

[Rook]

OK, let’s try this again.

This is my thread, so we are going to do it my way (er..I hope ). So many attempts at discussing these issues get bogged down by the same ol’ arguments, so I’m going to lay some ground rules in the hope we can have a civil, productive, mutually beneficial discussion.

(Don’t make me push that Report to Moderator button!! )

Ground rules:

1) NO discussion/arguments relating to the burden of proof. For the sake of this discussion, anecdotes and personal experience will be taken at face value. No requirement for claims to be substantiated by videotape “proof” although specific videotaped fights MAY be referred to as examples.

2) NO discussions on whose training methods are superior/inferior or effective/ineffective. For the sake of discussion we will assume that everybody is training hard and well. There are strong and weak practitioners in ANY school, kwan, gymnasium, fighting system.

3) NO discussions on what is fighting and what isn’t. For the sake of this discussion, we can assume that anything from point-style sparring to wrestling to NHB has lessons that are applicable to real self defense situations while none completely replicate what may or may not happen outside of competition.

4) Just because we haven’t SEEN it used on video does NOT, for the sake of this discussion, automatically mean that it is therefore proven not effective. We will assume the possibility that it simply hasn’t been tried by someone with the skill to make it work.

5) I’m probably missing a rule that will sidetrack the discussion. Those sidetrack issues aren’t allowed either

6) If you have an issue with any of these ground rules, please take them up in a new thread. Bring my attention to it and I’ll argue them there. This is not the time nor place to second-guess the above assumptions.

Ok, I'll give it a try.

Now on to the TOPICS:

a) What can traditional martial artists learn from the recent mixed martial art systems?

b) In what ways could mixed martial arts be improved by concepts from traditional martial arts not yet being used?

I’ll kick things off with some thoughts I’ve had on these subjects but never got around to discussing, having been sidetracked by other discussions.

-=-=-=-=-

Relating to a) What can traditional martial artists learn from the recent mixed martial art systems?

• MMA is a great game for training the transitions back and forth between different fighting ranges - kicking range, punching range, stand-up grappling/throwing, ground grappling.

Games that cater to kickers, such as point-style and Olympic sparring, kickboxing, etc., can establish some bad habits: if you know the guy is not allowed to grab your leg and throw you, you are much more likely to use kicks in ways that might get you hurt in self defense situations.

The MMA game shows the importance of TIMING when using kicks:
Wrong time = tossed on your butt HARD.
Right time = easy end to a conflict (such as GSP’s well-timed roundhouse to the head in fight vs Hughes, or turning back kick in a previous fight).

•*MMA has also demonstrated well how devastating Muay Thai-type knee strikes can be. As it doesn’t take a WHOLE lot of training to pull a head down into an uprising knee (as compared with learning a jump-spinning wheel kick, for example), I think learning to watch out for, avoid and block the upward knee to the head is something all martial artists should think about in their training. I would love to hear comments from others on this subject.

• MMA has also shown just how BAD letting someone get in the mount position on top of you can be. Being “grounded and pounded” on the street could end up being a ticket to the hospital with no referee there to stop things. Training to avoid letting someone achieve the mount and how to quickly get them off of you, I think, is something else all martial artists should seriously think about.

• MMA has also shown how useful various “submissions” can be such as the rear naked choke, armbar, and kimuras. RNC and armbars are techniques I have always considered to be very effective tools. MMA matches have demonstrated I was not wrong in my opinion/theory.

I put quotes around submissions because, in self defense, these can cause devastating damage. Dislocating an elbow or shoulder may put them in shock, and will definitely make them less of a threat should they continue to attack. RNC can put someone to sleep or worse, if held for a long time, can cause brain damage or even kill someone.

If you don’t have these in your toolbox, I recommend GETTING them.

• Conditioning IS important. It doesn’t matter how good your techniques are if you “gas out” and are unable to use them. Maybe not AS important in self defense as in a ring, as self defense situations tend to be shorter, but I subscribe to the “better safe than sorry” line of thinking.

• One thing I think Pride Fighting has demonstrated, since it seems to let things go a bit further than UFC, is that “it ain’t over till it’s over.” I mean, I have seen some fighters weather a devastating flurry either during standup or during a ground and pound and, by keeping their head and blocking/covering, keep conscious and turn the fight around, even coming up with a win sometimes.

Not to be confused with being “saved by the bell,” but then again, there may not be a bell in self defense situations, but very often there is a time limit in that law enforcement or friends or even compassionate strangers may arrive to intervene.

So far we are in agreement.

• One of the weaknesses I see in the MMA game (but is probably unavoidable due to safety issues) is how the mat mitigates the effect of throws. In MMA matches, a throw seems to be merely a means to an end: get them to the ground for the ground and pound or submission.

On most surfaces a throw, IMO, would be a fight-ending technique. Not always, but many times. Especially with an untrained attacker who is not used to keeping his head from bouncing off the ground upon impact.

Not talking about some of the less ballistic takedowns, mind you, where both people end up tumbling to the ground. But the judo-type throws, scoops, body slams, suplexes, etc., where there is a hard impact on solid surfaces are devastating.

With the exception of outdoor matches (occasionally held in Russia during the summer; I'll try to find you a video) its true that there will be a mat, and that will be a good deal softer than typical ground.

...

Moving on to topic b) In what ways could mixed martial arts be improved by concepts from traditional martial arts not yet being used?

• I don’t see a lot of effective feinting used. By effective, I mean feints that REALLY make the opponent think they are going to be hit by the feint but in actuality open them up to your REAL intention.

If you truly deceive your opponent with a feint, they will be VERY vulnerable to that real technique.

Great example is GSP’s recent knockout of Hughes. He never even SAW the kick — and the ones you don’t see usually hit you harder. MUCH harder.

Fakes have all the risk of the real technique without the reward. Some fighers will use fakes, but ussually not. Bas Rutten and later some others have advocated only a minimal use of jabs and light strikes because they leave openings for counter and aren't, in his mind, worth the risk. Some of the more technical strikers make much more extensive use of them.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is during stand-up in MMA matches almost nobody is using body shots. Everything is going to the head (with the exception of the Muay Thai leg shots).

In my ITF-type fighting I’ve noticed that what works for boxers also works for me: if you make them fear those body shots, their hands will drop and open them up for a clear, hard shot to the head.

With the exception of Sergei Kharitonov, Randy Couture, Vanderlei Silva and a few others that consistantly attack the body, most fighters don't want to be in range for a clinch that they don't initiate. Body shots typically are hooks and uppercuts rather than the linear punches that allow a person to keep their distance and the removal of part of the head's protection can allow thai clinches to be established. Several people have been caught by this, and so ussually it is aggressive, aggressive fighters with a good clinch game to fall back on that are willing to take the risk. Remember too that long combos are often broken up by clinches or takedown attempts rather than being finished as in standup fighting, which reduces the reasons for setting them up.

• I am not seeing a lot of attacks in MMA matches which go after the solar plexus. While training abdominal strength can reduce the size of this target, I find there is always a quarter-sized target to hit which can seriously affect their ability to breathe.

This goes back to the above point: even if you don’t completely knock the wind out of them, if you can just stun the diaphragm enough to get them to drop their hands, that head shot becomes much easier to land.

Can't respond to this one without breaking your rules, so I;ll leave it be.

• Powerful kicking is a useful tool. Slapping MT kicks into the legs can “chip away” at them or weaken the knees. But during the last UFC, an undercard fight showed that one powerful, committed kick to the leg can drop someone.

Again, going back to the above comments about body shots (keeping in mind that you must have timing to safely pull them off), a powerful blast to the body can end a fight as quickly as a kick to the head.

With the exception of the turning back kick I saw GSP throw, I really haven’t seen this tool used much, if at all, in the UFC/Pride/IFL matches I've watched over the years.

The turning back kick certainly doesn't lack power, but it is an invitation for a takedown - frequently ending up with someone with rear control. Since it can only be used when a takedown isn't an option, its a fairly rare weapon of opportunity that most fighters don't really bother to hone. While most can pull it off, few do it well.

This power kick to the gut could, I think, be achieved easily enough in the very same way the fighter in the recent UFC set up the power roundhouse to the leg: he feinted a shot to the head and unleased the kick.

So feint the shot to head (to bring their arms up, preventing a block), and of course timing to make sure a shoot or leg-grab doesn’t happen, and blasting the ribs or solar plexus could very well end them or knock enough wind out of them to enable a finishing flurry.

Are you thinking along the lines of an elevation change (use linear punches, but bend more at the knees so that your shoulder is at solar plexus level)? If so, you need to watch for the thai clinch and/or flying knee - probably not worth the risk.

=-=-=-=-=

That pretty much is my thoughts in a (rather lengthy) nutshell.

Now I’m very interested in hearing from other TMAists (JMAs, CMAs, FMAs, etc.) as well as MMAists (and other fighting arts that are typically grouped with them such as wrestling, Sambo, etc.)

I hope this works out well and we can finally get to sharing things from differing perspectives as opposed to getting bogged down in the same old arguments.

Ok.

 

[SenseiBear]

Lets hope this doesn't devolve - I get awful tired of the non-stop bickering this topic seems to evoke. I will keep my comments short.

The biggest things I think TMA's could/should/have learned from MMA's are - How important hard, consistant training and conditioning is. For years, it seemed that so many TMA schools made martial art an academic rather than physical endeavor. Also, it really brought to light the importance of ground skills to many TMA schools. Again, for many years, for most styles, fighting on the ground was just discounted.

The biggest thing I think MMA's could learn from TMA's is the value of extended training that gives you skills and abilities later into life (you can force your body to do so much in your 20's, but you will pay for it); and the value of a large tool bag of technique... Things that may be unimportant in most ring fights, and seem like they take too much training to perfect for a young fighter, but as was noted earlier, when the opportunity arises they can end the fight, even if they time a lot of time and effort to develop. If you are only training for a couple of years, the cost/benefit analysis of these types of techniques make them not worth doing, but if you plan to train for 20, 30, or 40 years, the equations change.

 

[Don Roley]

It seems that before we debate Traditional vs anything else, that we should determine if what is called "traditional" is actually older than some of us.

It has been my experience that a lot of things have been dropped from arts through the years and the switch overseas. If they do not have all the stuff that they used to have, are they still 'traditional'?

I have a friend that said that 97 percent of the karate he has seen is crap. And whenever he tells people that, they all assume that they are in the other 3 percent. I can say that same about my art.

But I have found that by digging deeper into the martial arts here in Japan that they had a lot of things that I never knew they had. In some cases, I found things by people like Peyton Quinn and Marc MacYoung and then had my eyes opened into seeing that the arts I was studying had the same things. I merely had not noticed them. Even living here, I would not have noticed the importance of certain things right under my nose had I not had it pointed out to me by sources outside of Japan. Would I have learned them anyways after more experience? I don't know. Ditto for if there is anything I have yet to find out. My prior experience may have colored what I see.

So I guess the point I am trying to make is that maybe 97 percent of what we call 'traditional' would not pass muster a few generations ago. And that maybe the stuff that was left out is in reality very important. If so, then maybe we can learn a lot from seeking out the old to determine the new. What we think is missing might be there after all and the two sides may be closer than we think.

 

[SenseiBear]

Good points Don - and I guess I wasn't trying to say these things didn't exist in the TMA's originally, just that I very rarely saw it being taught. And if 97% of schools of an art don't teach it, within a very short time, it will no longer exist in the art - regardless of what was there decades ago.

 

[Rook]

Perhaps this should be split off into another thread guys.

 

[zDom]

With the exception of outdoor matches (occasionally held in Russia during the summer; I'll try to find you a video) its true that there will be a mat, and that will be a good deal softer than typical ground.

I'd like to see some of those matches, see how it changes the dynamics of things.

Do they hold those matches on hard-packed earth, or grassy type areas? I've seen throws demo'd on grassy ground that, while not as forgiving as a mat, isn't is bad as other ground.

Environment, I think, changes things significantly. A fight on the beach, for example (no clothes to use as "handles," sand to land on during takedowns/throws) should result in different tactics than a concrete parking lot in Minnesota (thick jackets that can be used like judo-gis as handles, hard surfaces that make falls more likely to cause serious injury).

Fakes have all the risk of the real technique without the reward. Some fighers will use fakes, but ussually not. Bas Rutten and later some others have advocated only a minimal use of jabs and light strikes because they leave openings for counter and aren't, in his mind, worth the risk. Some of the more technical strikers make much more extensive use of them.

Ahhh — but there IS a reward. Not immediate reward; a reward that pays off when their opponent THINKS they know what's coming but it is something ELSE.

One of the tricks to effective feinting is to hit them with it first before using it as a feint. Example: GSP didn't just feint a leg kick right off the bat. He hit Hughes with several leg kicks FIRST... then, later in the fight he was able to exploit that by making Hughes THINK it was another low kick coming... but it wasn't.

With the exception of Sergei Kharitonov, Randy Couture, Vanderlei Silva and a few others that consistantly attack the body, most fighters don't want to be in range for a clinch that they don't initiate. Body shots typically are hooks and uppercuts rather than the linear punches that allow a person to keep their distance and the removal of part of the head's protection can allow thai clinches to be established. Several people have been caught by this, and so ussually it is aggressive, aggressive fighters with a good clinch game to fall back on that are willing to take the risk. Remember too that long combos are often broken up by clinches or takedown attempts rather than being finished as in standup fighting, which reduces the reasons for setting them up.

Doesn't have to be a long combo, though. And it has to be the right situation. We've all seen plenty of fights where there weren't a lot of attempts at clinching/takedowns: the fighters just stood there trying to bridge the gap for a big KO punch. Back and forth, closing distance, swinging at the head.

Lots of misses because both fighters KNOW what the other guy is about to throw: another head punch.

So an option would be, for example, coming in with a feint-jab, then sticking the right cross (or reverse punch) deep into their solar plexus.

The turning back kick certainly doesn't lack power, but it is an invitation for a takedown - frequently ending up with someone with rear control. Since it can only be used when a takedown isn't an option, its a fairly rare weapon of opportunity that most fighters don't really bother to hone. While most can pull it off, few do it well.

GSP has used at least one turning back kick successfully in a UFC match (where takedown is an option), so it can be done. Again, it's all a matter of timing.

Honing it to the point where it is viable DOES take time and effort, and few have the ability to do it well.

But fighters facing someone like GSP, who they know can pull it off, then have to keep that it mind: it becomes part of the equation when they are considering bridging the gap. Do they REALLY want to rush into a turning back kick?

Are you thinking along the lines of an elevation change (use linear punches, but bend more at the knees so that your shoulder is at solar plexus level)? If so, you need to watch for the thai clinch and/or flying knee - probably not worth the risk.

Every technique has risks. But, to paraphrase an old saying, I'd rather have a tool that I can't use in a fight because the situation isn't right than to NEED a tool that is just right for the situation and not have it.

Using an example from TKD sparring: just KNOWING the other guy has a good spinning heel kick is something I have to think about when sparring him.

In actuality, they rarely get used — and almost never connect (because the other guys are looking out for them!) But BECAUSE the other guys must look out for them, it then makes OTHER techniques viable.


MMA fighters have a nice toolkit that is "tried and true" for what they are doing. But I think there are other tools, other tactics that are NOT being used that COULD be.

Especially since they are also spending so much time learning to defend against what they expect to see. If someone brings something new (for thatt particular venue), they will be able to use it to great effect, at least until people change their training to prepare for it.

 

[zDom]

So I guess the point I am trying to make is that maybe 97 percent of what we call 'traditional' would not pass muster a few generations ago. And that maybe the stuff that was left out is in reality very important. If so, then maybe we can learn a lot from seeking out the old to determine the new. What we think is missing might be there after all and the two sides may be closer than we think.

Very true, Don. And, no doubt, a lot of the assumptions made about TMA are based on that 97 percent.

 

[Rook]

I'd like to see some of those matches, see how it changes the dynamics of things.

Do they hold those matches on hard-packed earth, or grassy type areas? I've seen throws demo'd on grassy ground that, while not as forgiving as a mat, isn't is bad as other ground.

I've seen both grass and bare earth.

Ahhh — but there IS a reward. Not immediate reward; a reward that pays off when their opponent THINKS they know what's coming but it is something ELSE.

One of the tricks to effective feinting is to hit them with it first before using it as a feint. Example: GSP didn't just feint a leg kick right off the bat. He hit Hughes with several leg kicks FIRST... then, later in the fight he was able to exploit that by making Hughes THINK it was another low kick coming... but it wasn't.

Fair enough.

Doesn't have to be a long combo, though. And it has to be the right situation. We've all seen plenty of fights where there weren't a lot of attempts at clinching/takedowns: the fighters just stood there trying to bridge the gap for a big KO punch. Back and forth, closing distance, swinging at the head.

Lots of misses because both fighters KNOW what the other guy is about to throw: another head punch.

So an option would be, for example, coming in with a feint-jab, then sticking the right cross (or reverse punch) deep into their solar plexus.

What you have to think about it bit is why they stay at distance and box for KO punches like brawlers and outfighters rather than close like infighters. Watch how pure boxers in boxing matches try to shut down infighters - clinch is frequently one hand on neck and the other one as an underhook (Ali's prefered clinch). In boxing, that does nothing but stall - in MMA both hands on the neck and you have a thai clinch, both hands on the body you easily have double underhooks.

Bas Rutten has used elevation changes to some sucess without being kneed in the head, but many people who try them in MMA end up getting thai clinched or nailed with a flying knee.

GSP has used at least one turning back kick successfully in a UFC match (where takedown is an option), so it can be done. Again, it's all a matter of timing.

Honing it to the point where it is viable DOES take time and effort, and few have the ability to do it well.

But fighters facing someone like GSP, who they know can pull it off, then have to keep that it mind: it becomes part of the equation when they are considering bridging the gap. Do they REALLY want to rush into a turning back kick?

The people that use it well, like St. Pierre and Loiseau, use it after set up, when the opponent is significantly weakened and is not in a stance or state from which a takedown is likely to be forthcoming. If it gets mixed into the rest of the regular standup, rather than used sparingly on weakened opponents who have been set up for it, it creates a major opening for a takedown. Thats why even St. Pierre and Loiseau - who have taken the time to hone in - combined only have a couple of uses in their entire MMA careers.

Every technique has risks. But, to paraphrase an old saying, I'd rather have a tool that I can't use in a fight because the situation isn't right than to NEED a tool that is just right for the situation and not have it.

Using an example from TKD sparring: just KNOWING the other guy has a good spinning heel kick is something I have to think about when sparring him.

In actuality, they rarely get used — and almost never connect (because the other guys are looking out for them!) But BECAUSE the other guys must look out for them, it then makes OTHER techniques viable.

Fair enough. I think this goes back to the idea of large numbers of specialized techniques vs. a few bread and butter ones and where on the spectrum you choose to land. Most MMA fighters have chosen a few bread and butter techniques in the standup portion, and a large number of specialized ones once on the ground, though it varies from fighter to fighter.

MMA fighters have a nice toolkit that is "tried and true" for what they are doing. But I think there are other tools, other tactics that are NOT being used that COULD be.

Especially since they are also spending so much time learning to defend against what they expect to see. If someone brings something new (for that particular venue), they will be able to use it to great effect, at least until people change their training to prepare for it.

Response would be outside rules, so I'll leave it be.

 

[Tez3]

To be honest I get very confused when you start discussing MMA. Are any of you MMA fighters at all? I train, teach and fight MMA. We don't do it for self defence we do it to compete in MMA, self defence we do in different classes and do different techniques. Techniques used in MMA are for winning the match. There are different rules in MMA, amateur, semi- pro and pro. Amateur has no head shots whatsoever, standing or on the floor, semi has head shots standing only and pro has head shots standing and on the floor therefore there are different ways of fighting for each set of rules.Pride and UFC rules are different from each other so tactics needed to win in these will be different. We don't fight on beaches or car parks, we fight in rings and cages.
As we know who we are matched with we will plan our fight tactics according to their strengths and weaknesses so it's incorrect to generalise about techniques in a fight. We train to fight a particular person not any person who comes along. We aim to be as equally skilled standing as on the floor. The difference may come when a fighter comes from a particular background where they may be slightly stronger.All but the young ones coming into the sport come from a traditional background. The young ones 16+ are learning MMA as a whole. You may not see as many moves as you think you should in a fight, the fighters are trying to win and will use what is effective against this opponent. Mats are for the safety of the fighters, MMA is a competition, a sport, a game. In many ways it shouldn't be compared to TMAs (which incidentally most of us do as well) more to boxing or perhaps to your American football!
If this has broken your rules I do apologise, I compete a lot, and see at least one show a weekend, I also judge and am about to become a referee. I too find arguments MMA v TMA pointless and tiring. I would like MMA to be seen as what it is - a sport which we train specifcally for.

 

[jks9199]

There's lots of things in the original post that I think come down to a matter of opinion -- or just a matter of awareness. For example, most solid self-defense/defensive tactics programs teach knee strikes because they're powerful, and easy to learn. And most traditional systems have things in them that are rarely seen or openly practiced, especially in sporting situations.

• MMA is a great game for training the transitions back and forth between different fighting ranges - kicking range, punching range, stand-up grappling/throwing, ground grappling.

This -- I'll disagree with. I don't see a lot of fluid transitioning when I watch MMA. I see people strike until they grapple, then they lie on the ground until the opponent gives them a chance to get up. Now -- this may be a result of how the rules are written, but there are ways to fight your way back up from the ground. Just as there are ways to bring your opponent to the ground while you're there, and you do see some of these.

And, I've not been impressed at all by the strikes while people are on the ground -- from either side. There are principles and techniques for throwing powerful strikes while you're on your back -- or at a person on their back. I don't see them being used much.

My final thought (for the moment!) is that I also don't see many people in the MMA-type events who are among the highly skilled people in a traditional martial art, except for BJJ and a few kickboxers. By that I mean that you don't see top-ranked judoka or karateka who go in, and really rely on and use the principles and techniques within their system to compete in MMA. Instead, we see the guys who got a black belt (maybe) in 2 years, before running off to do something else... or the wrestler who added a few classes in boxing and went off to do MMA, and so on. (And I do realize I'm over-simplyfing these folks; they're generally good athletes who train in their sport very hard! Please allow me a little hyperbole...)

MMA is a competition, a sport, a game. In many ways it shouldn't be compared to TMAs (which incidentally most of us do as well) more to boxing or perhaps to your American football!

I think this is the key; there are things in each for the other to learn from -- but, at the end of the day, MMA is a sport. TMA can fill several roles, and only one of them is sport.





But I will take

 

[matt.m]

To be honest I get very confused when you start discussing MMA. Are any of you MMA fighters at all? I train, teach and fight MMA. We don't do it for self defence we do it to compete in MMA, self defence we do in different classes and do different techniques. Techniques used in MMA are for winning the match. There are different rules in MMA, amateur, semi- pro and pro. Amateur has no head shots whatsoever, standing or on the floor, semi has head shots standing only and pro has head shots standing and on the floor therefore there are different ways of fighting for each set of rules.Pride and UFC rules are different from each other so tactics needed to win in these will be different. We don't fight on beaches or car parks, we fight in rings and cages.
As we know who we are matched with we will plan our fight tactics according to their strengths and weaknesses so it's incorrect to generalise about techniques in a fight. We train to fight a particular person not any person who comes along. We aim to be as equally skilled standing as on the floor. The difference may come when a fighter comes from a particular background where they may be slightly stronger.All but the young ones coming into the sport come from a traditional background. The young ones 16+ are learning MMA as a whole. You may not see as many moves as you think you should in a fight, the fighters are trying to win and will use what is effective against this opponent. Mats are for the safety of the fighters, MMA is a competition, a sport, a game. In many ways it shouldn't be compared to TMAs (which incidentally most of us do as well) more to boxing or perhaps to your American football!
If this has broken your rules I do apologise, I compete a lot, and see at least one show a weekend, I also judge and am about to become a referee. I too find arguments MMA v TMA pointless and tiring. I would like MMA to be seen as what it is - a sport which we train specifcally for.

You know Ybot also said something to the effect of "Who said it wasn't a sport" When I made a thread called "Enough is enough" or MMA is a Sport. I don't remember which, however....I point to Rodrigo Vaghi's website to show substantiation.


I really love the idea of the thread, what I would really like to know is this. I understand the reasoning of Judo and Tae Kwon Do rules in randori and sparring. There is no guessing how the match is scored etc. I understand that in Tae Kwon Do and Judo, at least from my experience that the following occurs: You get taught the traditional art. For Tae Kwon Do it would be the poomse, one steps, one step sparring drills, the multitude of varied combinations etc. In Judo you are taught the plethra of single throwing techniques, chokes, take downs, off balancing drills, holds, footwork and kata.

When you go to tournament you know that there is a specific set of rules that are to be used as guidelines. So each prospective competitor knows what is usable. In Tae Kwon Do it would be everything with the expection to hands to the face and has to make contact with hogu or side of the head. The point is, any technique is usable as long as it follows into the above guidelines.

Moreover, the big button question is directed as to "Why are the most used techniques in the UFC used, (i.e. double leg, jabs, mount, triangle, rear naked choke, certain armbars)? Is it a) they are the easiest/quickest to use? or B) Are they the most accepted because that is what most of the top guys use over and over and they are generally accepted?

I am asking because I have been on both sides of the fence. SD and sport in big deal scenerios. That is why to me a rear naked choke, a side kick, a shoulder throw, a reverse punch etc. is no different. It is only the situation that is applied to that makes it different. The techniques in and of themselves do not change at all. To do a correct shoulder throw it is all about hips and back, to throw a good reverse punch it is all about hips and back. What your arm is doing is rather in material when showing the comparison.

I wholeheartedly believe that if someone doesn't know how to block, punch and kick then they should, in a hurry. I also believe that if you cannot clinch or choke then there is no way on earth that you should do without learning those techniques either.

I have never been in MMA competition, I was watching UFC II in Charlotte NC, at the same time period I also represented the Marine Corps in Judo and Greco.

 

[Tez3]

I have a suspicion that MMA in the States and MMA in the UK come from different places! There are very few fighters in the UK that don't come from a TMA background, we don't have the wrestling culture you have over there. I don't know anyone who has done wrestling as a first sport apart from an Iranian lad who was in his Olympic wrestling team. We've said time and time again that MMA should not be judged by the UFC. A lot of people have built their opinions on the top fighters in the UFC and not of everyone else who competes.These top fighters are entertainers as much as anything else, I wish you could see the skilled fights that we see every week for comparison. You would see so much more!
On Mattm's point on scoring, there are also rules for scoring, if you wish I can PM them or start another thread?
On knees, I learnt knee strikes from Wado Ryu, most of us do them Muay Thai style. Rather than being random it is a skill you have to learn.
Quote I see people strike until they grapple, then they lie on the ground until the opponent gives them a chance to get up. Now -- this may be a result of how the rules are written, but there are ways to fight your way back up from the ground. Just as there are ways to bring your opponent to the ground while you're there, and you do see some of these. Unquote
this I think is because again your top fighters come from a wrestling background and are confortable on the floor, ours do either traditional Juijitsu or BJJ, quite often both competing in their comps as well. As I said most fighters comp from a trad karate/kickboxing background too. many of ours as with the Japanese come from Judo. I can't think of a British fighter who is not well rounded to be honest.

These might be worth you haveing a look at to see if you can watch UK fights.
http://www.cagerage.tv/

http://www.mmauniverse.com/

www.cagewarriors.com

 

[zDom]

I have a suspicion that MMA in the States and MMA in the UK come from different places! There are very few fighters in the UK that don't come from a TMA background, we don't have the wrestling culture you have over there. ...

I think you may be right.

The skill set for MMA competitions is being promoted here across the pond as a "New, Improved!" martial art.

(Some even go so far as to say it is the most effective collection of techniques that invalidates/makes obsolete traditional martial arts.)

I think there are some who still think of MMA as competition for martial artists (of all or any type) to participate in, as well.

But in the U.S., there are now organizations which are teaching MMA fighting systems — we have one in our town (a Miletich school).

And I've heard some work on applications for outside the ring — which to me implies that they are in effect becoming a martial art system, as opposed to just a training camp for MMA participation.

Kind of off topic for this thread, but would make an interesting discussion for another thread, no doubt. Anybody care to start one up?

 

[Tez3]

I'll see how my hangover is in a day or two and I'll start another thread lol!
I think one way our MMA differs from yours perhaps is that you have a rich tradition of wrestling in the States that we just don't have here.Our fighters come from judo and TMAs. I think this may account for the fact that we have a lot of very competent strikers who are learning the ground game whereas you have the competent ground game guys who I imagine find it easier to relate to the BJJ/JJ work. I'm trying to think of British fighters you may know, Mark Weir? he fought in UFC58, in London. he's from a TKD background. Leigh Remedious, fought Genki Sudo on the same show, he's trad as well. We have a couple of Olympic Judokas too. Ian Freeman came from Jiujitsu.
Here we promote it as exactly what it says .... mixed martial arts. In my club we teach that and the traditional styles along with self defence which as my instructor ( Judo and Shotokan Dan grade as well as a couple of others) is a close protection officer includes anything that will work.Traditional and 'modern' work side by side very well, there is an overspill both ways I think (though my knees hurt from Kime No kata!) On five months we are all off to Thailand and Fairtex to train Muay Thai. many clubs i know of include a traditional MMA as well as MMA. I think if you have a well rounded deep knowledge of martial arts, which I'm privilaged to say I train with people who have this, you will have the best techniques at your fingertips for any situation.
A lot of us train at each others clubs, even though we compete against each other, it's one of the very best things about MAs, the friendliness. We will do Judo for the throws, BJJ and JJ for the groundwork, MT and kickboxing for the standup work though many of us have a background in full contact karate. I know of very few who do wrestling, I don't even know where there's a wrestling club. We also do Aikido for the locks etc. We'll take any technique we can out of our collective knowledge of martial arts.
Again if this is wandering off the track again I apologise! Happy holidays everyone!

 

[juszczec]

a) What can traditional martial artists learn from the recent mixed martial art systems?

1. Performing your techniques against actively resisiting opponents should be MANDATORY if you are training for self defense.

If you are training for exercise, self improvement or something else then its not necessary. BUT the guy in charge should explain that your application will most likely be improved if you engage in some kind of "sparring"

2. Conditioning, conditioning, conditioning.

Fighting is a physical activity. In general, the better shape the body is in, the better the technique works.

3. Open mindedness is a good thing.

Most MMA guys I've met are concerned with "Can I use this to hurt the other guy without him hurting me?" If the answer is yes, they'll use it. If the answer is no, then they won't.

They don't suffer from the "not invented here" syndrome.

b) In what ways could mixed martial arts be improved by concepts from traditional martial arts not yet being used?

1. Some MMA guys are working too hard from the point of view they aren't using body dynamics to get more "bang" from the "buck" (paid in terms of energy expended) in their techniques.

So you get alot of fighters who can't put together combinations to save their own lives. Sure, if you are 6'5" and 250lbs then your roundhouse swing to the head ain't a bad idea (if it connects). But for me (5"10" 175lbs) I can get better results by using my body from a technically "correct" point of view.


2. MMA is done in a controlled environment. It has to be otherwise people are going suffer career ending injuries or maybe get killed.

To the MMA industry's credit, they have tried to reduce the number of safety rules to the barest minimum. At the same time, they have increased the number of allowable techniques to a level we've never seen in combat sports.

Nonetheless, its a controlled environment. The tactics/strategies that lead to victory in the ring may or may not be applicable outside the ring.

3. This is more geared to normal people who do MMA. Just because Liddell/Coture/Ortiz/Franklin/GSP/Gracie can do these things doesn't mean they are going to magically work for you. All the guys I mentioned are monsters who could probably beat the daylights out of most people using ballet. They also spend more time training than most of us spend sleeping.

Combine physical gifts, intense training and love of what they do (and the pay for pro MMA is still pretty lousy, the guys who do it do it because they love it) then its little wonder they have superhuman abilities.

All that said, I think TMA can learn more from MMA. If only the open mindedness part. And please don't think I'm busting on TMA. I've only ever done TMA - but I've been fortunate to have very open minded teachers who have encouraged me to pick and choose what they teach based on my needs and physical abilities.

Mark

 

[zDom]

Great contributions!

Thanks, all, for playing along.

 

[tradrockrat]

MMA fighters have a nice toolkit that is "tried and true" for what they are doing. But I think there are other tools, other tactics that are NOT being used that COULD be.

Especially since they are also spending so much time learning to defend against what they expect to see. If someone brings something new (for thatt particular venue), they will be able to use it to great effect, at least until people change their training to prepare for it.

This is absolutely the greatest post I've seen on this topic. Being a long time practitioner of a "Bastard " MA as many feel ABA Bando is - I've been very reluctant to enter into debates like this, but here is my belief in a nut shell -

TMA lost focus on the practicality of fighting someone with a different skill set a long time ago - It bacame all about who was the better (Insert Art here) practitioner

MMA has corrected that - strong, minimal skill sets done well by super fit practitioners cleaned house and embarrased TMA over and over again.

Now MMA has become codified and static in it's own right - ie these skill sets work for us, other techniques aren't worth the risk (sound familiar?)

Now other fighters are entering the octagon with feignts, spinning back kicks and other techniques related to TMA stand up fighting

HOLY COW! Can it be??? Will we come full circle??? Again??? Of course we will. Now what we can hope is that ALL take from this the fact that if you train to be the best you can be with the skill sets that work the best for you, you will be a superior MA practitioner and very effective.

Coincidentaly - this was the logic behind U Ba Than Gyi's decision when he invited masters from all over Asia to come to Burma after WWI and teach their skill sets in order to incorperate them into Bando to rebuild what he believed had been lost throught the years under British rule. He took Indian Wrestling, Chinese Tiger techniques, Japanese striking and Judo, Added the Kukri - anything that worked in the ring and could be used in combat (sound familiar?) But he did it in the late 20's and his version of Bando was considered blasphamy - today it would be considered some weird version of JKD or MMA.

 

[Ybot]

TMA lost focus on the practicality of fighting someone with a different skill set a long time ago - It bacame all about who was the better (Insert Art here) practitioner

MMA has corrected that - strong, minimal skill sets done well by super fit practitioners cleaned house and embarrased TMA over and over again.

Now MMA has become codified and static in it's own right - ie these skill sets work for us, other techniques aren't worth the risk (sound familiar?)

Now other fighters are entering the octagon with feignts, spinning back kicks and other techniques related to TMA stand up fighting

HOLY COW! Can it be??? Will we come full circle??? Again??? Of course we will. Now what we can hope is that ALL take from this the fact that if you train to be the best you can be with the skill sets that work the best for you, you will be a superior MA practitioner and very effective.

This is a wonderful post, thank you. I agree, I believe that we will begin to see more of the intricacies of stand up fighting as the sport progresses. I think that the only reason we haven't seen this type of stuff too much yet is that those who were good at it had to rebuild their game from the ground up. They couldn't just jump in and start using this stuff without opening themselves up to takedowns and submissions. As the overall grappling competence has improved, in order to compete the striking levels are picking up.

In the end, though, they are athletes who are going to put time into training what they need to win competitions.

What could TMAs learn from MMA?

Well, that most (not all) arts really have a range of fighting they specialize in, and the key to winning a fight has to do with forcing your opponent to fight a fight that you are dominate in.

So, it is not only important to train "live" as was mentioned before (and besides the good TMA schools do this anyway), but also learn how to take a fight to your dominate range and keep it there. TMAs typically only compete with others of the same art, and so want to fight the same way they do. They have to learn to make an opponent fight the way you want them to rather than just expect them to.

What can MMA learn from TMAs?

Since MMA is a sport and not a standardized system, I say they can learn a lot from TMAs. TMAs are encyclopedias of martial knowledge, and if an MMA competitor can take something and make it work in their rule set, then they should.

They make list of arts one must have to be a successful fighter. Usually Muay Thai, BJJ, Wrestling, and boxing. Someone asked why these became the MMA styles, and here is my opinion on that. These styles are all styles that specialize in one range of fighting. These arts are also arts that train "live" nearly the whole time, from the beginning of learning these arts. Those arts either through marketing or through American culture where the most widely practiced of "live" training arts.

Too many MMA are trying to make it a standardized system of sorts. I believe this will only stunt their ability to progress. Open mindedness is important.