Joe Rogan smack talking TMA's like kung fu
- Thread starter TSDTexan
- Start date
I've seen the fight you're talking about. Being a SEAL doesn't mean he's had any extensive in kickboxing/mma. It does mean he is fit. I've trained TMA and I love TMA, but they've been proven to not be as effective in an MMA/no-holds barred context. I would still recommend them any day of the week for fitness, discipline, and self-defense.
Being a seal means you're fit, smart, and determined. It doesn't mean you have any significant training or experience at unarmed combat.
I can't stand Joe Rogan. I try to ignore him and keep him and his smack talk about of my life. All of his comments about Traditional Martial Arts is based on his personal failure with his own Martial Arts and not understanding the difference between martial arts that have been developed for sporting purposes and martial arts that have been developed for the sole purpose of destroying someone. He has never taken a traditional kung fu style to my knowledge.
Joe Rogan is just bitter that the martial arts that he knows is mainly for sport and point scoring. He let his arrogance misguide him. He stated that when he was taking TKD that his hands were terrible and that the Muay Thai fighters were destroying him. He failed to realized that TKD is most often taught as a sport which mean there are limitations. For example, during TKD competitions the fighters fight with their hands lowered. But in most traditional martial arts, the students are always being reminded to keep their hands up, and all of the methods learned are for the purpose of destroying and not point sparring.
Joe Rogan is just bitter that the martial arts that he knows is mainly for sport and point scoring. He let his arrogance misguide him. He stated that when he was taking TKD that his hands were terrible and that the Muay Thai fighters were destroying him. He failed to realized that TKD is most often taught as a sport which mean there are limitations. For example, during TKD competitions the fighters fight with their hands lowered. But in most traditional martial arts, the students are always being reminded to keep their hands up, and all of the methods learned are for the purpose of destroying and not point sparring.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
I'm sorry, what is the actual point you're making here? A comment that Joe Rogan expressed an opinion (educated or not) with no link, no reference, no support, which you've phrased as "says it doesn't work" (uh… what "doesn't work"? All TMA's? Is that actually what Joe said? Work for what? What is the context of the comments?)? Followed by your argument against whatever you feel Joe said by referencing a single occurrence (again without a link, reference, or support) with no context at all? A boxing ring? Neither the Marines nor a "Shaolin fighter" train for such things… so what does it mean? One guy beat one other guy once in a single environment, so…. what?
Look, I'm not saying that Joe is right or wrong… I don't know what he actually said, or the context in which he said it… what I'm saying is that, if you're going to start a thread in this way, some better communication and clarity might go well in the future. Otherwise it can just come across as kinda sour grapes… and not entirely in keeping with the spirit of the forum.
Now, if you want to provide a reference of what you're talking about (Joe's comments), perhaps that could be a more productive discussion.
I've heard joe get on his soapbox before, I can see where he's coming from. He requires evidence for proof an art's efficacy. Some arts simply can't be tested. so without testing to prove their quality you are left with faith and belief that the art is effective. tma deserves every bit of scrutiny it gets imo.
But one also must keep in mind why some arts were created and propagated to begin with which brings up the issue of Rogan's context.you can't criticize an art for not being an effective fighting method when that's not the purpose it was designed for. For some it might be surprising that fighting skill is not the primary purpose of every TMA.
But one also must keep in mind why some arts were created and propagated to begin with which brings up the issue of Rogan's context.you can't criticize an art for not being an effective fighting method when that's not the purpose it was designed for. For some it might be surprising that fighting skill is not the primary purpose of every TMA.
The whole TMA are for "the deadly/destruction" argument is bs. There are hundreds of TMA designed for different purposes, making a blanket statement one way or the other is bs, you must address each art specifically if you want to criticize or defend it. Also, what do you think they're doing in the ring?one fighter tries to destroy the other. Depending on the martial sport certain rules are out in place to cultivate certain skills. If your art trains punches you can test yourself against a boxer. If your art punches and kicks you can test it in a variety of events. Same for grappling. All training has rules in place, all training will have practices that remove it from reality. Saying your art is for destruction exclusively is bs, you can tell yourself that all day and you're just as diluted as a sports fighter who thinks he's best in the world.
In my book and life experience there are very few TMA out there. Some are only TMA in name but not in practice. Tai Chi is a perfect example of this. There are so many places that don't teach Tai Chi from a traditional standpoint most people only think of it a health exercise.
I agree with this and it's because of this that some places only train with the purpose of a sport and not for the purpose of actually fighting. See the 2:00 mark
Name one part of Jow Ga Kung fu that isn't for the purpose of destroying something on the opponent.
The movies make kung fu look flashy and as a result there are misconceptions about real kung fu and how it would look in a real fight. People see this video and think that this is the same way that kung fu would attack a grappler. Joe would look at the video and say that the kung fu fighter isn't blocking the kicks. If you look closely you'll see that he's not only blocking it but he's also striking the knee.
This is what kung fu looks like against Muay Thai 0:30 - 0:47 and 2:10. I recognize strikes here because we have similar ones in Jow Ga.
This is what kung fu look like. I know the guy in the yellow and have sparred against him.
Three examples which are far from what Joe Rogan was yapping about.
Defining TMA is another task in and of its self. Once you try to pin down a definition the task gets harder. I think most people think of TMA as eastern arts utilizing forms (kata) and classical highly stylized postures. Korean, Chinese and Japanese arts are the ones I think people most commonly think of. But there are arts within these cultures that don't quite fit the mold; judo, sanda, indigenous wrestling arts. Then you realize that there are western arts, Indonesian/pacific arts, and martisl arts in pretty much every culture many of them much older than some of the arts commonly called TMA (like boxing, fencing, wrestling). So perhaps the term TMA is born out of ignorance or a lack of consideration as it is.
I can agree with most of what you say. I think tkd is an example of rules restricting an art's usefullness and taking it in the wrong direction. If leg kicks were aloud, punches were cultivated more, and heavy contact was more popular in tkd I think the art would have an entirely different reputation.
As for destruction and Jow Ga, now we've named a specific art rather than blanket all "TMA" together. Jow Ga is one kung fu style I'm vaguely familiar with that has a great reputation and good quality controll. I've seen plenty of video of Jow Ga guys doing more than just forms, they actually seem to work a lot of application and spar hard. To my knowledge some Jow Ga guys also enter kickboxing and Muay thai comps and do well. So I won't argue that Jow Ga as a "TMA" isn't about destroying the opponent, I'll just add that what boxing or Muay thai techniqyes arent about destroying the opponent?
Mephisto.
I understand your point and it makes sense. If most people think of TMA as eastern arts utilizing forms (kata) and classical highly stylized postures, then I can see where it would be easy for people to make the statement that Joe has made. If that's the case with Joe, which it appears to be so, then what he's referring to isn't the same thing I'm referring to. I guess the first step in a topic like this would be to get on the same page as what one would considered as TMA so that the discussion can be about the same content.
If someone says Traditional TKD then my first thoughts are shifted toward Taekkyeon which looks to be the self-defense that TKD sport left out. Taekkyeon also is older and it's not hard to imagine TKD being born from it as a sporting martial arts.
I would never make a blanket statement about "ALL" TMA, mainly because I don't know all TMA. So I apologize for any misunderstanding that I may have caused. Based on how you explained what most people considered as TMA, then we aren't even talking about the same thing. The way that I was explained by my Sifu, is that Traditional martial arts was a fighting system that was use in the aid of defending one's village or in an army (before bullets and guns). It has nothing to do with forms but purpose. Which is to fight in a non-sporting manner. My understanding of TMA is not the same as what you pointed out. When you explained how most people see TMA as being then Rogan made sense.
Boxing and Muay Thai (more so Muay Thai) is about the destruction of the opponent within a specific set of rules. The goal of both is to cause harm to the other, within the rules of wearing gloves and allowing other people to get up. But for some martial arts the goal isn't to destroy the opponent but to score points on them. Such as this fight
You can clearly see that neither is trying to inflict great harm on the other.
I understand your point and it makes sense. If most people think of TMA as eastern arts utilizing forms (kata) and classical highly stylized postures, then I can see where it would be easy for people to make the statement that Joe has made. If that's the case with Joe, which it appears to be so, then what he's referring to isn't the same thing I'm referring to. I guess the first step in a topic like this would be to get on the same page as what one would considered as TMA so that the discussion can be about the same content.
I agree with this totally.
If someone says Traditional TKD then my first thoughts are shifted toward Taekkyeon which looks to be the self-defense that TKD sport left out. Taekkyeon also is older and it's not hard to imagine TKD being born from it as a sporting martial arts.
I would never make a blanket statement about "ALL" TMA, mainly because I don't know all TMA. So I apologize for any misunderstanding that I may have caused. Based on how you explained what most people considered as TMA, then we aren't even talking about the same thing. The way that I was explained by my Sifu, is that Traditional martial arts was a fighting system that was use in the aid of defending one's village or in an army (before bullets and guns). It has nothing to do with forms but purpose. Which is to fight in a non-sporting manner. My understanding of TMA is not the same as what you pointed out. When you explained how most people see TMA as being then Rogan made sense.
Boxing and Muay Thai (more so Muay Thai) is about the destruction of the opponent within a specific set of rules. The goal of both is to cause harm to the other, within the rules of wearing gloves and allowing other people to get up. But for some martial arts the goal isn't to destroy the opponent but to score points on them. Such as this fight
Kukki TKD has without a doubt gone off into its own tangent
But many ITF and Smaller associations havent fell into that
TKD =! TKD
^in many instances
The majority of the schools my association associates with do face punches and/or leg kicks, only one school actually enforces the "blood rule" at the tournaments for the adults.
I've seen our KJN have people keep fighting after a broken nose
Generally, both those associations fight like the harder karate styles that get praise so much in MMA
I've never been a fan of Joe
FOr a few different reasons, But at the end of the day you have to remember one thing:
He is a UFC commentator/promoter
If a Karate or TKD or Kung Fu guy is fighting, he'll praise those styles
If they aren't, he talks down to them.
His job is it help liven up MMA more, he's gonna bounce on either side of the fence to do so
FOr a few different reasons, But at the end of the day you have to remember one thing:
He is a UFC commentator/promoter
If a Karate or TKD or Kung Fu guy is fighting, he'll praise those styles
If they aren't, he talks down to them.
His job is it help liven up MMA more, he's gonna bounce on either side of the fence to do so
I'm glad to hear that all TDK hasn't gone soft. It's clear from Rogan's statement that he had the misfortune of training with a school that didn't put much weight into punching.
All of this is true. He "stirs the pot" and nothing get's people talking or more energetic about something than to put down the fighting system that someone else likes.
Whenever people said, "If you want to fight, buy yourself a gun", you know that person's opinion about MA training is for health, self-cultivation, inner peace, ...
One concern about Kung Fu (CMA) training in general is too many people concern
- too much "micro" point of view, and
- not enough "macro" point of view.
The "mirco" point of view can be:
- Dantian power,
- dynamic isometrics,
- spine and core skills,
- internal power and internal structure,
- ...
The "macro" point of view can be:
- getting in, getting control, taking down, finishing,
- kick, punch, lock, throw, ground-game integration.
- deal with weapon.
- deal with multiple opponents.
- ...
IMO, we should start from "micro" point of view and move into "macro" point of view in order to see the big picture of our MA training.
Last edited:
Im not sure I'd call it "soft"
A lot of Kukki guys (especially those who started before electronic scoring) kick hard, and can take kicks. Theyre just not used to a kickboxing style sparring because its so different than their sport.
Pure boxers have had the same struggle in Kickboxing and MMA
As for Joe, He competed in kukki style events according to the video everyone shows to call him a "TKD master"
Similar rules to what we have in the olympics, but it was USTU instead of what is is now(USAT I think, but I always get it wrong haha)
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Context. Here we see an art that is designed to destroy someone that comes at you with a pre arranged attack and then just stops for no good reason.
hoshin1600
Senior Master
Haters will hate.
Joe makes a statement about Kung fu and everyone chimes in bashing him and the art he studied and his job...that's the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me. Instead of bashing the guy and tuning him out just because you don't like the guy how about actually listening to what someone has to say and try to understand where he is coming from. I can guarantee if he was here to defend himself you would come away with a different understanding.
Joe makes a statement about Kung fu and everyone chimes in bashing him and the art he studied and his job...that's the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me. Instead of bashing the guy and tuning him out just because you don't like the guy how about actually listening to what someone has to say and try to understand where he is coming from. I can guarantee if he was here to defend himself you would come away with a different understanding.
OP
OP
TSDTexan
Master of Arts
I don't hate him. I simply think he is off base or misguided.
I have heard his repeated refrain about kung fu and other tma. He hated on the showing of respect by bowing, and hates foreign terms like Sabanim.
Of course he is a Westerner, who undoubtedly trained under Westerners, so I can't ding him too hard.
He poopoos Chi/Ki as fantasy martial arts.
But then... From his mindset if it isn't a hard style that instantly translates in to combat application then it isn't real but is fantasy martial art.
Last edited:
I've seen that video hundreds of times and he's showing various techniques that are in the system. Pre-arranged attacks are always used for demonstrating techniques.The reason that he stops is because the technique has been demonstrated. Here's what's going as far as I can tell
0:09 looks to be a parry with the right, trap with the left and a palm strike to the head most likely targeting the nose with the purpose of breaking it.
All of the attacks up to 0:14 looks to be the same parry, trap, strike face. I can't tell if any were strikes to the eyes or just the nose. One appeared to be attacking the bone right under the eye.
0:14 attack to the head and it should be targeting specific areas on the head
0:18 parry, trap, and then a hit to the head with a signature Jow Ga punch. The guy is falling from the weight of the forearm pushing his head that way. If that punch actually landed then the energy would have followed the path of where the guy fell. If someone got hit with it in a real world application then it can easily break the jaw.
0:20 those are our jabs. Real world fight situation would be to throw a few of those and then go big. It's the same with other styles of fighting.
0:26 in my opinion I would try to attack a round house kick that way, but the application is to attack the nerve in the leg, and quickly smash the face before you regain balance (in reality the attack actually targets somewhere else near the face but not on the face)
0:43 I think that's from the tiger form. purpose to is to break the nose then blind the person.
0:46 strike the nerve in the leg and give an upper cut.
0:48 is a combination attack. Every system has a combination attack. The purpose of the combination attack is to deal damage and then reset. Plowing in with a non-stop combination is a bad plan because it doesn't take long for the defender find your weakness. It also puts you at greater risk for someone to drop and shoot on you in order to put you on the ground.
The rest after that are a bunch of attacks from tiger. again break the nose and blind the opponent.
1:37 is an anti-grappling technique. It's not impressive because the shoot isn't what a BJJ guy would do. The shoot is more typical of someone who doesn't know how to shoot. This is the downside of only training with people who use the same style. He actually misses the mark with using this technique.
1:39 is a more realistic shoot. But he still misses the technique. The technique that he's using takes a high degree of skills to make it work.
1:42 he finally gets the technique correct.
1:49 bad shoot, not the best technique to use to defend the technique. at least not the one I would use.
The rest is like 1:49. The technique alone isn't wrong, but in my opinion it's not the technique that I would use to defend against someone shooting for the legs or waist. It's definitely not the technique that we use to defend against the shoot. When defending against a shoot, a person needs to take into consideration the impact of the shoot. Only the 1:42 mark takes into consideration of the impact. I had a similar technique demonstrated on me by my sifu and it works, but it requires a high level of skill because if you miss the target then you're in trouble.
Almost all of the attacks were very practical and can be done in a real fight. The same techniques can also be done multiple ways and they don't require that a person punches with a specific hand first.
