A MT argument while at work

[Hand Sword]

Hello all,

A big, and long debate went on with me and coworkers about the martial arts. We are all pratitioners, or have been, both with the MMA's, and TMA's.
(I'll consider, for the sake of argument, the "eclectic styles" TMA's as well. They've been around long enough)

We argued from a reality point of view, and their application, since we are in the security/LEO industry.

What went back and forth was That the MMA's are the new revolution in the MA world, bringing everyone else (or forcing them, which was the word used) into the light. The TMA's were dated, maybe revolutionary back in the day, but, now MOSTLY irrelevant. They were designed to defend against that one big punch by a drunk, where you take a stance, block it, etc.. It was said that no one fights that way for real, it's more like a MMA flow to it.

Where does everyone stand on this?

 

[pstarr]

For one, the term "mixed martial arts" being used as though it's something new is a misnomer. Virtually all forms of kick-punch martial arts (karate and kung-fu systems) also include an array of grappling maneuvers and joint techniques. Some systems utilize more grappling techniques than others, but they're there.

The old traditional schools of grappling (shuai-jiao from China, jujutsu from Japan, and so on) also featured various forms of striking.

So the concept of "mixed martial art" is nothing new.

Now, if you use the term "mixed martial art" in reference to guys wearing padded gloves and competing in a roped-off ring under sets of rules with a referee watching the action...that was never a part of traditional martial arts.

The old traditional practitioners trained as if their lives depended on it - because they did. And a great many of them were known to have used their skills with tremendous effect (and not against drunks). By and large, they trained to be able to knock a man down or kill him as quickly as possible.

If they say that, "No one fights that way for real..." well, somebody did back in the day. I think these fellows probably have a pretty skewed idea of how people "used to fight."

I'd tell them to get real. People fight now pretty much like they've always fought save for firearms and other technological advances.


In the competition ring killing your opponent is frowned upon - and any peace officer who thinks that wrestling an assailant on the ground is a good idea is likely to have a fairly short career. I know- I was one.

The "mixed martial arts" haven't "forced" traditional martial arts into the light by a long shot. Traditional martial arts were never intended for competition and fighting with rules.

The only way to get the true measure of it would be to put a traditionalist in the ring with one of these "revolutionaries" or whatever they're calling themselves nowadays...no pads, no rules, no referee. Anything goes.

I remember back in the 70's when the first "karate vs. boxing" contests were held. It was a circus. The karateka had to wear boxing gloves (!!!), couldn't kick or use throws, couldn't hit his opponent in the back, and so on. Guess who won?

That'd be like putting the boxer into a TKD tournament and telling him he can't punch to the face and a kick to the head is worth two points. Who's going to win?

The measure of a martial art can't be made if it's forced to wear the rules of another form. Karateka should never fight under boxing rules, boxers should stay clear of TKD tournaments, grapplers should enter tennis contests...

And to measure the true effectiveness of a traditional martial art means risking a life. It just isn't worth it.

As for me (as a former police officer), I'll stick with what I know works - and it's worked for several centuries.

 

[pstarr]

Oops- I meant "grappler should NOT enter tennis contests..."

 

[MartialIntent]

Hello all,

A big, and long debate went on with me and coworkers about the martial arts. We are all pratitioners, or have been, both with the MMA's, and TMA's.
(I'll consider, for the sake of argument, the "eclectic styles" TMA's as well. They've been around long enough)

We argued from a reality point of view, and their application, since we are in the security/LEO industry.

What went back and forth was That the MMA's are the new revolution in the MA world, bringing everyone else (or forcing them, which was the word used) into the light. The TMA's were dated, maybe revolutionary back in the day, but, now MOSTLY irrelevant. They were designed to defend against that one big punch by a drunk, where you take a stance, block it, etc.. It was said that no one fights that way for real, it's more like a MMA flow to it.

Where does everyone stand on this?

HS, this is a good question. I would agree - having *never once* encountered anyone in a real live situation who came at me with a recognized TMA strike - that nobody fights like this on the pavement. Thing is, *I* do though. I'm much happier to mold my style to the "modern" circumstance rather than run off jumping the MMA bandwagon because someone in their great wisdom deems my art outmoded and has also decreed the MMA arts the best thing since sliced bread. If that's your thing, fine. I've got no arguement that one art is better than the other.

But I don't see the point of X-training *my* art just because some street-guru says it no longer holds sway with the street-fighting fashion intelligensia - shoulder pads and Dynasty haircuts ok, but my Aikido, no. Traditional, yes it is certainly. Out of date? Well only to practitioners too lazy to refocus their techniques and instead run off looking for the arts that have the nicer t shirts or the coolest ring-boots or the highest-profile TV coverage.

If one is bored with one's art, fair enough, that suggests a need to go find something more challenging or appropriate, I'd be the first to suggest that. But at least we should be honest about it and not reason that it's because it doesn't work in the application for which it's designed. If anything in such an instance we should be honest with ourself that our motivation has withered to look deeper into our existing art.

All imho only! And all my own work. And I still like Miami Vice rolled-up jacket sleeves anyway. Fashion? Who cares, hehe.

Respects!

 

[Kensai]

I think the concept of the MMA is great in the ring, but as previously stated, it's nothing revolutionary. Where did the original techniques come from? You've guessed it, TMA. It's a good idea to x train in my view, if you think it will benefit you, and your existing art. MMA is in my opinion, the simplest, most direct attacks/defence for the ring. I'd imagine there's little or no difficulty in transferring that to a self defence scenario too, so all good. Self defence and fighting ARE different beasts entirely, it is a fine line, but there is a subtle difference. A lot of TMA focus on SD, some focus on fighting. There's good in both. Also as previously mentioned, MMA is in vogue at the moment, some arts are trendy, some aren't. It's to do with TV exposure, it's to do with marketing, martial arts politics (which royally pees me off I might add) and egos, always a dangerous, small-minded mix.

MMA for me has no interest. I've sparred, done boxing training in the forces, been punched in the face/head with gloves and bare knuckle in the course of my TMA/boxing training, I don't feel the need to constantly step into a ring to "fight someone" to prove that my MA works. If "you" do, that's great. I personally wonder if sometimes MMA leads to a watered down version of TMA, what I mean by that is, I'd rather do a direct striking TMA, and a grappling TMA to X-train, rather than do some MMA. That's simply my personal preference, what works for me, isn't someone elses cuppa tea. Whatever you train in, should work for you, and add an element of realism/practicality and most importantly perhaps, enjoyment. I get that from Wing Chun, and am currently looking for a grappling art taught in the West Mids in the UK...If anyone has any ideas, I'm open to suggestion.

Cheers,

Kensai :asian:

 

[MJS]

Hello all,

A big, and long debate went on with me and coworkers about the martial arts. We are all pratitioners, or have been, both with the MMA's, and TMA's.
(I'll consider, for the sake of argument, the "eclectic styles" TMA's as well. They've been around long enough)

We argued from a reality point of view, and their application, since we are in the security/LEO industry.

What went back and forth was That the MMA's are the new revolution in the MA world, bringing everyone else (or forcing them, which was the word used) into the light. The TMA's were dated, maybe revolutionary back in the day, but, now MOSTLY irrelevant. They were designed to defend against that one big punch by a drunk, where you take a stance, block it, etc.. It was said that no one fights that way for real, it's more like a MMA flow to it.

Where does everyone stand on this?

I certainly wouldn't get discouraged, think that your training is useless and run off to start something 'new' because someone else said so. IMHO, alot of it comes down to how one gears their training. Many people look at an art, not really having any background in it, and assume that because things are not being done a certain way, that its ineffective. Personally, I think before any judgement can be formed, a more in-depth look at the art in question, would be required.

I think that its a good idea to cross reference other arts, so as to get a better understanding of how they work, is a good idea, but I don't think that one needs to run off, abandon their current art, and jump on the new craze. For example: There are defenses in Kenpo against someone attempting to tackle us. Now, if I always trained my defense against people with little to no grappling experience, am I really going to know if I can really do this defense? Instead, I think it would be good to work with someone such as a grappler to get a better feel as to how they're going to do this tackle, and make any corrections/adjustments to my defense. Am I leaving my base art? No, but I am, as Martial Intent said, molding my style to the current times.

Pstarr also brought up some very good points. There are many aspects hidden in the traditional arts. The key word there is 'hidden' and its up to the student to be able to extract those points and apply them. Having a teacher that can show these things is half the battle.

Keep in mind that everything has its pros and cons, its strong and weak spots. If I wanted to better my punching skill, I may look at the MMA's, so 'borrow' some ideas and concepts that they use. However, if I was looking to better my club and knife defense, I think that it'd be best to look at the FMA's for example, or an art that focuses a bit more on that area.

Mike

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Hello all,

A big, and long debate went on with me and coworkers about the martial arts. We are all pratitioners, or have been, both with the MMA's, and TMA's.
(I'll consider, for the sake of argument, the "eclectic styles" TMA's as well. They've been around long enough)

We argued from a reality point of view, and their application, since we are in the security/LEO industry.

What went back and forth was That the MMA's are the new revolution in the MA world, bringing everyone else (or forcing them, which was the word used) into the light. The TMA's were dated, maybe revolutionary back in the day, but, now MOSTLY irrelevant. They were designed to defend against that one big punch by a drunk, where you take a stance, block it, etc.. It was said that no one fights that way for real, it's more like a MMA flow to it.

Where does everyone stand on this?

complete BS. You either train for the way you're going to fight.....or you practice something impractical.
Guys that do MMA are training to fight MMA......that doesnt mean they wont be good in other aspects of martial arts......but it is martial sport.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Hello all,

What went back and forth was That the MMA's are the new revolution in the MA world, bringing everyone else (or forcing them, which was the word used) into the light. The TMA's were dated, maybe revolutionary back in the day, but, now MOSTLY irrelevant. They were designed to defend against that one big punch by a drunk, where you take a stance, block it, etc.. It was said that no one fights that way for real, it's more like a MMA flow to it.

Where does everyone stand on this?

Do these people watch TV? Shows like COPS, Maximum Exposure, or World's Most Amazing Videos? Or do they ever watch clips of "real" street fights on Youtube or Ebaums World? There's plenty of documented video to tell anyone with two eyeballs and a brain that a large majority of attacks are right-left haymakers and/or tackle & grab attempts. The normal 'Joe' on the street isn't going to use Tito Ortiz-like strategy when considering how they will rob you, or after a couple of beers how they will make you stop looking at their girlfriend. LOL ....that is, unless you've managed to piss off the real Tito Ortiz, or one of his students...unlikely.

There's absolutely no reason why someone that takes the time and developes the discipline required to learn TMA couldn't more than adequately defend themselves in the 'real' world.

 

[gixxershane]

i dont think that martial arts are out dated.. i think that they need to evolve as we do. every system has its pros and cons..

there have been really good posts here in this thread..if you look at mma, you see verry little defense when it comes to the stand up.. it seems to me that when counter strikeing they also get hit... might just be me, but i thought the whole idea is to not get hit, then hit back in a devistating manor.. thus preventing the altercation from going to the ground..

i have no problems with wanting to cross train to try to gain an advantage, so as to be prepaired for as manny situations as possible.

this is just my opnion, and you know what they say about thoes

 

[Kensai]

Do these people watch TV? Shows like COPS, Maximum Exposure, or World's Most Amazing Videos? Or do they ever watch clips of "real" street fights on Youtube or Ebaums World? There's plenty of documented video to tell anyone with two eyeballs and a brain that a large majority of attacks are right-left haymakers and/or tackle & grab attempts. The normal 'Joe' on the street isn't going to use Tito Ortiz-like strategy when considering how they will rob you, or after a couple of beers how they will make you stop looking at their girlfriend. LOL ....that is, unless you've managed to piss off the real Tito Ortiz, or one of his students...unlikely.

There's absolutely no reason why someone that takes the time and developes the discipline required to learn TMA couldn't more than adequately defend themselves in the 'real' world.

Smack on the money. Another difference, fighting some chav on the street who's trying to half inch your wallet, or a 230lb muscleman fighting machine/professional fighter, massive difference in circumstances.

 

[mrhnau]

complete BS. You either train for the way you're going to fight.....or you practice something impractical.
Guys that do MMA are training to fight MMA......that doesnt mean they wont be good in other aspects of martial arts......but it is martial sport.

those two statements seem a bit contradictory. What is wrong w/ a martial sport? I don't participate in one, but I'd love to hear why its w/out merit.. not just MMA, but other MA's you'd consider martial sports.

Lets tear the first one apart, since you called BS

1) Boxers train to fighting in a ring. they wear gloves, and train for specific durations of time, 3 or 2 minutes. This won't happen in a "real fight", so is their training impractical? They also train w/ head gear, but they don't fight with it. Personally, I'd not like to face a boxer in a street fight.

2) In just about every martial art I'm familiar with, you don't go full contact or full threat (someone with a loaded gun pointed at your head for instance, or someone seriously intent on killing/raping/maiming you). So, would you consider the training w/out full contact or w/out serious threat w/out merit? Alot of MA's have multiple attacker defenses. This seems a realistic situation, but how many deal with more than 4 attackers at a time? is this not also possible? They won't all come in to attack in sequence either, but likely jump in whenever they want, w/out choreography. Try that next time you do multiple attackers in practice. They won't be going slow-mo either

3) Suppose you play soccer. The intent of playing soccer is to win games. each player has their own facet, but they play as a unit in an attempt to score and win (in this case, take soccer to be the training). Now, take a soccer player and put them on a track, telling them to run a 100M race (in this case, the "realistic" situation). Would they do ok? Most of them sure would, because a byproduct of them playing soccer religiously is that they are in shape enough to perform decently on the track. Is running a 100M race the point of playing soccer? No. So, would it be impractical for the "real situation" of running a 100M race?

so, in conclusion, you can't truly practice realistically (w/out protection or GREAT health insurance), but thats a bit irrelevant, since you practice the best you can for what you could possibly encounter. I'd rather be a soccer playing running a 100M race than some guy sitting on the couch all day drinking beer trying to run the 100M. I guess you could "pressure test" your stuff by going out and picking fights, or entering no hold barred contests, but personally I value my life a bit more than that Its hard to defend against someone w/ a gun a few yards away. You can't possibly train for every situation, but you train the best you can. Does not make it unrealistic/impractical, just practical and you train the best you can.

 

[Dark]

Hello all,

A big, and long debate went on with me and coworkers about the martial arts. We are all pratitioners, or have been, both with the MMA's, and TMA's.
(I'll consider, for the sake of argument, the "eclectic styles" TMA's as well. They've been around long enough)

We argued from a reality point of view, and their application, since we are in the security/LEO industry.

What went back and forth was That the MMA's are the new revolution in the MA world, bringing everyone else (or forcing them, which was the word used) into the light. The TMA's were dated, maybe revolutionary back in the day, but, now MOSTLY irrelevant. They were designed to defend against that one big punch by a drunk, where you take a stance, block it, etc.. It was said that no one fights that way for real, it's more like a MMA flow to it.

Where does everyone stand on this?

Since your LEOs you guys need a reality check, that being intent, motive, concept and reality. I've got to play on both sides of the fence and have issues all a round.

MAs (TMA or MMA) is approached as a sport, will get you killed. Thats not to say BJJ or even TKD won't work in a street fight, I've seen it happen. That does say the basic human ability to learn does not generally process intent, motive and reality for any technque, only the method of how it is taught to be applied. Sports based MAs teach "fair play" in application, and until a student learns the technique fluidly enoughto do it on reflex the idea of fighting dirty does not come up, mentally.

I have friends who are LEOs as well, and as much as I love to throw back a few beers and watch some guys beat the crap out of each other, that is nothing compared to a street fight and even less compared to trying to bring some yahoo loaded on meth down in a fight without having to use lethal force. Most TMAs were designed for the battle field or the intent of killing another men/woman if need be.

I don't see MMA as the new revolution in MA, but the new marketing strategy for MA. I don't care if you use Karate or Muay Thai, BJJ or Greeko-Roman wrestling. There are only two essentual methods of martial arts striking and grappling and if you don't consider both them you are way off the map.

 

[Sapper6]

complete BS. You either train for the way you're going to fight.....or you practice something impractical.
Guys that do MMA are training to fight MMA......that doesnt mean they wont be good in other aspects of martial arts......but it is martial sport.

agreed.

it sounds like yet another, "MMA is the way to go; everything else is obsolete."

HS, you can't argue with closed-minded individuals. don't attempt to sway the ignorant. if you do, you're setting yourself up for disappointment. do what you do, the best you can do it!

 

[Rook]

At this point, MMA is the best we have and other systems should either prove that they are still competitive or stop pretending to be able to fight more effectively.

In China, lei fights occured for hundreds of years. A martial artist would set up a platform and ask people to fight him under a ruleset he created (his platform his rules). Challenge matches were common, often with agreed upon rules. These one-on-one prearranged fights were considered as the top indicator of fighting prowess and when a fighter was victorious over a rival, the loser's students would often go over to the winner or at very least leave him.

Today, virtually every time an MMA fighter faces a TMA fighter, he wins. This has given us spectacles such as MMA fighters with six months on part time training destroying lifelong traditional fights who operate their schools full time. Virtually every TMA man who has tried has failed - the Gracies, who are today far from the top of the MMA world have racked up literally thousands of victories under no or very few rules. Truly talented TMA fighters like Keith Hackney and Ron Van Clief have admitted the superiority of the new fighting style.

In the earlier days of mixed martial arts, fights in the hotels and bars surrounding the venues were fairly common. Though today this has largely passed, at one point virtually every UFC was followed by someone being jumped in the lobby. Some of these turned into mass brawls while others were one-on-one. One was fought 3 against 2 in an elevator. Several UFC competitors were attacked by street thugs in or around their hotels in an attempt to prove their toughness. The sheer fact that these people didn't say "hey, our tounament fighting is totally useless 'on the street'" should say something.

Even more relavent is the fact that many earlier UFC fighters were at one point streetfighters. Others were highly trained and very experianced TMAists. Yet, they gave up their old training for MMA preparation. If these things worked better, they wouldn't have changed. While many champions of the TMA's sport world, and several of its higher level non-competitive fighters have switched to MMA, no major MMA fighter has ever quit to study TMA.

In their day, the creators of many TMA systems were similar to todays MMA fighters. Unlike today's TMAists, they took their strength seriously. Many lifted river rocks regularly (a rather primative, though effective form of powerlifting). Others ran considerable distances building aerobic fitness. Several CMA forms are intended as isometric exercises. Often, they relished the idea of competition and actively sought out other martial artists to challenge. They then modified their styles to be more effective.

Bruce Lee pointed out that the personal insights of an effective fighter were often turned into static imitation by the kool aid drinkers of the world who refused to acknowledge that the originators were effective competitive fighters who won matches and trained for strength and speed.

Just as Royce Gracie was a dominent force in his origional UFC fights against all comers but now is little match even for a man he normally outweighs by 15 lbs., Yang LuChan and his like were truly phenomenal match fighers in their own day whose styles are today practiced in an ineffective manner and whose practitioners can no longer effectively face off against modern fighters.

Many TMA practitioners have fallen back on a weak and tired appeal to authority in the form of saying that their style's origionator was more street tested than modern MMA fighters. Perhaps true, but if his martial arts descendants can't fight, it doesn't matter whan his capabilities were - it is YOU who will fight, not him. The idea that combative knowledge is static is also rather absurd.

Today, we believe in things like blood circulation, even though the Roman surgeon Galen, who performed more operations than all but a few modern surgeons and was a personal doctor to the emperor as well as chief physician for the Olympic games explicitly stated that blood did NOT move about the body. If medicine was treated the same way martial arts were, every mention of circulation would be met with "Are you smarter than Galen?" "It amazes me that people who have never operated believe they know better than Galen" and similar statements.

 

[Dark]

At this point, MMA is the best we have and other systems should either prove that they are still competitive or stop pretending to be able to fight more effectively.

What defines competitive? I pretty much agree with as to the state of TMAs and that is the fault of more then just how they are taught. But do I define MMA as the best we got, yes and no. Sports wise I define it as the best we have, street wise may be. I haven't seen too many people who can stand up in the street, period end of story and I don't care what you think you know.

I don't care if its TMA or MMA, but not facing reality will get you killed. There is no one martial art or mix of martial arts that can prepare you for the real world, there is facing the reality that no matter what statistics say, or what BS propaganda your instructor feeds you. You will always be lacking and you will always stand a chance of being a victem at some end.

Now what defines competitive? Competitive in the ring and competitive in the street is a big difference...

 

[mrhnau]

Now what defines competitive? Competitive in the ring and competitive in the street is a big difference...

However, not mutually exclusive.

 

[Dark]

They are seperated only by intent and focus...

 

[Xue Sheng]

The TMA's were dated, maybe revolutionary back in the day, but, now MOSTLY irrelevant. They were designed to defend against that one big punch by a drunk, where you take a stance, block it, etc..

Actually many were designed to kill their opponent.

I know I am late to this, but I just saw it.

I have read through these posts and all though I agree with much of what has been said I thought that should be pointed out.

Many TMA were designed for use by people that were going to be in a war.

As well known Sifu said at a seminar when a woman asked him what you do after you get the person in the Qinna lock "you kill them"

Even in MA competitions in the past people got killed, there were no rules.

If your coworker believes what he is saying he has very little understanding of martial arts at all.

MMA is very impressive and quite effective, but I have never understood the need for some MMA practitioners to bash other arts, nor have I understood the need for some TMA people to bash MMA.

MMA is nothing new, it has been around or centuries by definition, Samurai practiced more than just sword arts. Chinese Solders knew more than just how to use a sword as well. MMA competitions on the other hand have not been around for years and are fairly new by comparison.

 

[Rook]

I don't agree Dark. The street follows the same rules of physics as elsewhere - if someone can strike, throw, or grapple effectively in a ring they should be able to do it on the street and more importantly viceversa.

 

[Kacey]

I don't agree Dark. The street follows the same rules of physics as elsewhere - if someone can strike, throw, or grapple effectively in a ring they should be able to do it on the street and more importantly viceversa.

Streetfighting has no rules - that is the issue that many people, whether they practice TMA or MMA tend to forget. Simply because you can beat someone in a fight with rules - no matter how loose the rules - means little on the street, where there are no referees, no protective gear of any type (including cups, unless you wear yours all the time), and no holding back from maiming or killing strikes, with or without weapons. No system, unless it follows the same lack of rules as a street fight, is going to prepare you to be in a street fight - so unless your system allows you to fight no holds barred, with no illegal targets, no holding back, and weapons of all types, then this statement is not particularly meaningful.