MMA vs. TMA Training Methods: Is One Better Than The Other?

[K831]

K831 -



I think this is something of a fallacious starting point - many MMA/BJJ folk have trained in TMA/RBSD before, so they do know about these techniques.

Again, when comparing the two training methodologies separately, those who have done both are moot point!

Every time a strength for MMA is mentioned, it is fair game to assume that the TMA'ist could have never replicated that strength in his own training? However, every strength presented for the TMA methodology is met with "well, many MMA/BJJ folks do both". LOL and why do they? Because the MMA/BJJ methodology on its own lacked that component? Isn't that what we are discussing? The strengths and weaknesses of each, individually and separate?

 

[Tez3]

Again, when comparing the two training methodologies separately, those who have done both are moot point!

Every time a strength for MMA is mentioned, it is fair game to assume that the TMA'ist could have never replicated that strength in his own training? However, every strength presented for the TMA methodology is met with "well, many MMA/BJJ folks do both". LOL and why do they? Because the MMA/BJJ methodology on its own lacked that component? Isn't that what we are discussing? The strengths and weaknesses of each, individually and separate?[/quote]

No it's turning into an MMA v TMA thread.

When will people understand that all are martial artists? We do what suits our strengths, build, temperment etc. Why this endless bickering?

 

[K831]

Well, basics such as effective blocking, striking, basic locks, throws, sweeps and take-downs (depending upon the art, the mix of these will be different).

The meat and potatoes stuff, as opposed to flying side kicks, spinning hook kicks, 360's, 540's, spinning back fists, spear hands, ridge hands, knife hands, pressure points, elaborate submissions, etc.
I would rather my students have excellent basics and no advanced or specialized training than to have it all and be sloppy. Most often though, instructors move students to the advanced stuff in order to keep them interested and paying dues.

I agree completely, with the exception that I do not consider open handed techniques to be anything other than core basics and “meat and potatoes.”

Otherwise, yes, a student with strong basics is far better off than a student with a gamut of techniques that are all sloppy.

I would rather my students have excellent basics and no advanced or specialized training than to have it all and be sloppy. Most often though, instructors move students to the advanced stuff in order to keep them interested and paying dues.

Daniel

Again, I agree completely.

Here is an example of the distinction I was making between MMA “basics” and a more TMA/SD oriented set of “basics”.
The Escrima guys I am currently working with look at everything from the point of view that your attacker will likely produce an edged or impact weapon.

Every set of “basic” strikes, blocks, parries, footwork etc is evaluated through that lens and from that context. It changes the how some “meat and potatoes” basics are practiced and applied.

This is not the case in any MMA school I have ever been in, and yet, I think the escrima guys present a superior methodology for SD, and yet we are only discussing “basics”.

Conversely, the early focus on drilling basics (heavy bag, mitts etc) and early sparring and contact found in MMA gyms is something that should be used to fundamentally change the training approach of most all TMA's.

 

[K831]

Again, when comparing the two training methodologies separately, those who have done both are moot point!

Every time a strength for MMA is mentioned, it is fair game to assume that the TMA'ist could have never replicated that strength in his own training? However, every strength presented for the TMA methodology is met with "well, many MMA/BJJ folks do both". LOL and why do they? Because the MMA/BJJ methodology on its own lacked that component? Isn't that what we are discussing? The strengths and weaknesses of each, individually and separate?[/quote]

No it's turning into an MMA v TMA thread.

When will people understand that all are martial artists? We do what suits our strengths, build, temperment etc. Why this endless bickering?

That's what I was driving at. I haven't yet figured out how to point out perceived failings of MMA methods without getting a knee-jerk reaction. I have better luck pointing out the failings of some of TMA's approach. Maybe because it is much older and some of the people involved aren't floating on air with it as much?

Bickering is no good, discussing is great! I do think a discussion of strengths, weakness and differences in training methodologies is worthwhile. That analysis is part of how I came to my current hybrid training methodology.

It works with everything. Body building vs plyometrics vs HIIT vs olympic lifting = a nice hybrid workout program!!

 

[MJS]

We're talking about actually fighting (even with rules) versus merely training. Sparring isn't fighting, though it's better than not sparring at all. Someone who has fought, even with rules, has an advantage over someone who has never been in a fight, even if he's trained extensively. There's an advantage (a quite serious advantage) gained by actually being in a situation where another man is trying to harm you, even if within a set of rules.

I agree to a point, however, sparring alone, with no other RW type training, isn't going to have as much as an advantage as one would think.

 

[Nolerama]

I think aliveness is the key.

It's not about hard contact per se. It's about being able to incorporate what you're drilling in class in an athletic contest.

All altercations are athletic contests.

The MA applied is the strategy.

You tell a student how to do X-technique in a dead pattern drill for years and they'll know how to do it eventually. Exactly the way you taught said student.

The X-factors within an altercation (from sparring to SD) will probably interfere with the "perfection" of that tech's execution. The opponent is too close. The opponent changed levels. The opponent pulled a knife. It doesn't matter. While the student might have the right idea of using X-technique in an altercation, they're trained to shoot the bullseye instead of the overall target. Once X-tech fails another X-factor is introduced: frustration, which we all know is not a good thing to have in an altercation.

Now, you introduce X-technique in isolation (even start with a dead pattern drill), and then "spar" using that technique with progressive resistance (this is why communication between training partners is key) you introduce a level of aliveness that sensitizes the student to many of the X-factors that might occur during an altercation. A good teacher might introduce X-factors in him/herself (I like to play w/ a trainer knife in grappling situations some times).

This can apply to all MAs, and many MA instructors get this concept. Yes, the dead pattern drills look really cool, and are part of the "art" and should be learned if you're learning an art, but in terms of function and applicability, aliveness must be introduced to the training regimen on a regular basis.

One might argue about training eye gouges, groin kicks, and other "dirty tricks", but a huge tenant within ALL MAs is Position Before Submission. You'll find that stuff when you're in the proper positioning, and definitely not from a disadvantageous one. Besides, going for an eye gouge with an opponent who has side control, with your back to him is probably going to escalate the situation (pull out a knife, gun, bring another person into the fight) instead of dropping him to the ground.

There's no difference between TMA and MMA training (I definitely agree with Tez on that), but there's definitely a difference between training from coach to coach, instructor to instructor.

You can be book smart, but never apply that. The same thing goes for MAs.

 

[MattJ]

Again, when comparing the two training methodologies separately, those who have done both are moot point!

?????????

Then why did you bring it up? You are the one claiming that boxers and MMA people will not know/forget to use non-sporting techniques. You are invalidating your own argument.

Every time a strength for MMA is mentioned, it is fair game to assume that the TMA'ist could have never replicated that strength in his own training? However, every strength presented for the TMA methodology is met with "well, many MMA/BJJ folks do both". LOL and why do they?

Because TMA/RBSD was far more prevalent than MMA before 1993, and probably still is?

Because the MMA/BJJ methodology on its own lacked that component? Isn't that what we are discussing? The strengths and weaknesses of each, individually and separate?

See above. I am not strictly discussing the arts in a vacuum, seeing as actual people practice them, bringing with them various levels of experience. You have used the same line of reasoning yourself in 'defending' TMA/RBSD by noting that some of 'them' have had real fights, competed in MMA, etc. Those experiences count, I'm assuming? It works both ways.

 

[MJS]

If the worry of many TMA systems is not the person whose aim it is to take them to the ground and grapple them in to being choked unconscious, I submit they are worrying about the wrong things.........that's not the result of the ruleset of BJJ/MMA it's the result of the way human beings are built.......hell, it's the way Chimpanzees are built and fit.........they knock each other to the ground, pound on each other, and bite each other's face and throat!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgurbo_4bqg&feature=related (apparently the chimps been watching too much MMA.......he thinks it's natural to tackle an opponent to the ground, and fight from there......silly MMA rule based monkey.....should have been working on something more 'realistic'.......

So tell me about the 'majority' of realistic attack scenarios? Do people grab ahold of each other, tumble to the ground, and then punch and kick from there?

Or do we see mass-attack situations where 5 bad guys come at the good guy one at a time, in a very orderly standup situation, ala an episode of Kung-fu?


Gracie's valid point is that if you can't out grapple and defeat one person, you're dead in the water against more than one...........because how does one avoid grappling if one doesn't know how to grapple? The best defenders against grappling and takedowns are those who are well versed in grappling and takedowns.

When faced with multiple opponents you probably better have a weapon.

So, if I'm reading this right, it sounds like you're basing this on the Gracie 90% rule then. On the flip side, you have those people that say that not all fights go to the ground.

So let me ask you this....just playing devils advocate here for a moment. If we take what you claim the Graices point is....that if you can't grapple and defeat 1 person, how can you defend against more than 1, then technically, I think its safe to say that Gracie has proven that they can do just what you claim...take someone to the ground, outgrapple them and win. So if they can do that, what is their method of dealing with more than 1? Its clear that they are capable of beating 1, using the rule set that they have in play.

 

[MJS]

Because people have opinions.

And certainly many people have claimed TMA to be superior, too, yes? It doesn't make it a fact, either way. I think a balanced approach is best, IMHO.

You do realize that I was replying to the part of his post in which he said:

"To the topic, which training is better? The one that gets you and keeps you training. Martial skill is more dependent upon how the person trains and with what mindset they train then it does with where and what style they train in."

I'm fully aware that both camps claim to be the best, have the best methods, etc., so you're not telling me anything new. I was simply looking to discuss the methods of both and if one really is better than the other.

 

[K831]

?????????

Then why did you bring it up? You are the one claiming that boxers and MMA people will not know/forget to use non-sporting techniques. You are invalidating your own argument.

I honestly don't know what you're talking bout here. You have a knack for coming out of left field.

I did not bring up people who do both in defense of anything. I mentioned that someone who only trains in boxing, or only trains in grappling, or only trains for a specific rule set, isn't going to have neuro-muscular memory sufficient to ract under stress with a technique he hasn't drilled, simply because it would be a better SD technique.

Your response to that was "Lots of MMA guy also do TMA so they have those techniques" to which I responded, "then it is a moot point" the op asked for a discussion comparing methodologies separately, not as one.

Now you are saying I invalidated my own argument by comparing them as one? Ok.....


[/quote]

 

[MattJ]

My bad. You had mentioned TMA/RBSD folk who had competed MMA, been in real fights, etc. Seemed to invalidate your own argument disallowing MMA people that had other experience as well.

 

[MJS]

You miss the point entirely........the fighting itself acts as training. And having been in a fight is different than having been in several fights. IF you sharpened your skills by fighting in the street, you'd get the same kind of experience.......you'd likely also go to jail (because there ARE rules.......even in the streets. ) The reality is that the cage is the CLOSEST thing you can get to an actual fight without running a huge risk of getting locked up. There's no substitute for actually doing.

I beg to differ.

How many 'combatives instructors' have been in real fights? And how many fights have they been in? The answer to both questions is 'very few and very few'. Yeah, if you go to a bar every week and pick a fight, you're going to get some real world experience very quickly........but who really does?

Many of the people I currently train with, have or still do, work in environments, in which their skills have saved their tails. I'm sure however, there're some that would not fit that category though.

Proof tested in a controlled environment TRUMPS untested theory every day of the week and twice on sunday.

To a point maybe, but all the time...I'd have to say no. Ex: You have an officer training scenarios in a firearms training simulator, ie: a controlled environment. They're testing themselves. If a mistake is made, the officer is not really going to die.

An officer faces himself in a live fire situation. There is no room for mistakes, as 1 mistake could mean the end of his life.

Apply the ring theory to the RW and the same setting as I just described with the officer, applies.

Have you tested yourself? In real combat, even with rules? The art isn't the issue, the artist is. Any fighter who tests himself in combat, even if there are rules, has a superior handle on the situation than one who exists only in practice and theory.

I agree that it is the person, not the art. I've said this many times as well....any art has the potential to work, its how its trained that matters.

Out of curiosity, seeing that you're obviously more in favor of the MMA methods, and thats fine, as this is what I was looking to discuss, but how do you gear your training?

 

[MJS]

Again, when comparing the two training methodologies separately, those who have done both are moot point!

Every time a strength for MMA is mentioned, it is fair game to assume that the TMA'ist could have never replicated that strength in his own training? However, every strength presented for the TMA methodology is met with "well, many MMA/BJJ folks do both". LOL and why do they? Because the MMA/BJJ methodology on its own lacked that component? Isn't that what we are discussing? The strengths and weaknesses of each, individually and separate?[/quote]

No it's turning into an MMA v TMA thread.

When will people understand that all are martial artists? We do what suits our strengths, build, temperment etc. Why this endless bickering?

And the members have the ability to control the direction of the thread. I gave the outline of what I wanted from this thread. Drift will most likely always happens, as it usually does in other threads too. Again, I'm simply looking at the comparison of how each group trains, because while there are similarities in strikes, kicks, etc., the methods of execution, hense, how they're trained, training methods, is different.

 

[K831]

My bad. You had mentioned TMA/RBSD folk who had competed MMA, been in real fights, etc. Seemed to invalidate your own argument disallowing MMA people that had other experience as well.

I think we are just getting our wires crossed. Yes, many have both experiences and I agree with your summation there. However, in discussing the OP's original question, I think we need to look at them separately, then we can see the strengths and weaknesses of both MMA and TMA training methodologies as they stand on their own.

 

[Nolerama]

I think we are just getting our wires crossed. Yes, many have both experiences and I agree with your summation there. However, in discussing the OP's original question, I think we need to look at them separately, then we can see the strengths and weaknesses of both MMA and TMA training methodologies as they stand on their own.

Unless you could lay out each methodology in terms of philosophy, cross-reference technique and cite examples, making broad generalizations like that would sound like they were based in assumption and personal inflection and not real experience.

 

[MJS]

While a fight in the cage is certainly closer that having done nothing, it still isn’t really all that close. Particularly psychologically. Yes, I have done both. In fact, I’ll have to ask my wife to dig out the tape of some of my MMA bouts from the late 90’s early 2000’s. Couple are actually pretty good.
In every city I have lived, the number of assaults reported vs convicted etc is pretty high, not to mention the many that go unreported. I find it hard to believe that you really feel that slugging it out in a street fight will put you in jail immediately. Having spent (I’m not proud of this) too much of junior high, HS and college doing too much fighting I can think of only 2 times the cops showed up before it was over and everyone had dispersed.

Agreed.

I have never trained with an instructor as an adult who doesn’t have very real experience. That is my personal preference.
However, I take your point and I am sure there are too many who are talking out there butt.

Likewise.

A safer bet for combat, isn’t that what we are really talking about and training for? So, were I to be going into “combat” I would choose the combat veteran whose psych./mindset were proven, over the competitor with the faster tac. reload who may crap his pants and freeze when it gets real. Same thing for MMA. I have seen guys with lots of competition under their belts melt down when it was real, where did all his bravado from the ring go?

Agreed. So, I suppose, both methods have their pluses, as I said, but depending on the goal of the person.....the appropriate method should be used IMO.

I addressed this, but you seem to have missed it. I am not discussing tested in a controlled environment vs untested theory, and why you would even try to compare them as either – or, mutually exclusive options is baffling. Proof tested in real SD situations TRUMPS proof tested in a controlled environment every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Agreed. Many of the people who I train with, are still around to teach and tell the stories of what happened, so something obviously worked.

Yes I have, in both. And I agree, a fighter who tests himself in a competitive situation gains something on one who doesn’t. What I still don’t understand is why you assume that if someone hasn’t competed in MMA then by default they have only theory and have never tested anything? That just isn’t so.

Agreed again.

No, I am trying to keep the conversation in context, and away from these huge generalities, like all competition acts as a “proof” and no one can test anything anywhere else so it must just be theory.
You citing Col. Jeff Cooper does nothing to refute my argument. Col. Jeff Cooper served as a Marine in both WWII and the Korean war. Weren’t most of his thoughts were born of combat, including his color code? I hardly think that degree of situational awareness and understanding came from gamming and race guns. Regardless, that is exactly why the IDPA was formed, USPSA was too “competition oriented” and they saw the fault in that for anyone who wanted their skills to more adequately cross over from competition to real shooting. That is the whole premise of the organization, and it speaks to my point.

This is what I dislike....the comments that make the claim that "If it works in the ring, it'll work in the street."

C’mon stgmac… why cherry pick? No one ever said that nothing from MMA could carry over into SD and combative situations. Hardly. What has been said by myself and others is that there are also many things that should not carry over and are glaring weaknesses in a SD situations. The same is the case with shooting competitions. You are for some reason choosing to only look at red dots. Awesome, they work great in many SD situations. Flaws were found though, and the idea of BUIS and co-witness applications came about. If were are going to do this comparison, why don’t you mention all race gun aspects and not just cherry pick the one that works in some combat applications?
What about "skeletonizing" and reduced-weight recoil springs that allow the use of "squib loads". Now that would be flat out suicide on the battlefield, and yet, it is “proof tested” in the competitions to achieve faster follow up shots. By your logic, we should get squib loads into the hands of all marines. Same as taking a proven MMA tactic (take a striker to the ground ASAP) and applying it to the street. It’s suicide.

Thus the reason why I always say that both MMA and TMA should look at each other and reap the benefits from oneanother.

Sure, by I am not operating from an untested paradigm. Why everyone assumes that people in a TMA are untested is beyond me. Whatever the reason is, it isn’t true. I am as hard on TMA’ists who fit that category as I am on MMA’ist who can’t see the dangers in taking many ideas that work in the rings and just assuming because they work there they work in the street. Both are silly and fooling themselves.
I have not allowed my TMA/combatives training to go untested. As I said before, the level of conditioning and contact is typically superior in MMA. The methodologies of TMA in terms of tactics are superior for SD. Those in a system like Krav, who actually train for SD and all its considerations while maintain a high level fitness and heavy contact, force on force etc are far better suited for SD than a competitor. The same applies to any TMA in that context.

Not sure how people can think that ALL TMA claims are untested. Is it because there're no tapes of recorded fights? No 'records', as if thats the deciding factor.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Again, I'm simply looking at the comparison of how each group trains, because while there are similarities in strikes, kicks, etc., the methods of execution, hense, how they're trained, training methods, is different.

In all honesty, this is not a realistic comparison. TMA is a large, amorphous term that includes weapon arts, dedicated grappling arts, dedicated striking arts, internal arts, hybrid arts, arts that are essentially about preserving an ancient tradition, arts that are dedicated to sport and competition, arts that really are ancient and arts that are younger than I am.

By nature, you will have training methods in TMA that will run the gamut from highly physical and realistic to highly physical preparation for competition to highly physical for good cardio and fitness to mildly physical but very realistic to hardly physical at all.

By contrast, because MMA is geared around a fairly uniform set of rules, a limited choice of settings (octagon or cage), and geared towards athleticism (helpful for a tournament fight of any art), the training methods will be more uniform and defined.

Some TMAs will train the same way as MMA fighters do. Some will not. The comparison cannot be made without a specific art or specific group being used instead of just "TMA". Even some subgroups would be too broad for a direct comparison. After all, aren't there like a hundred different ryu's of karate with numerous training philosophies and skill sets?

MMA vs. Taekwondo is a comparison that can be made: both have a sportive element for one. There are different varieties of taekwondoists, but there are not so many as to make direct comparison impossible,and there are different varieties of MMA athletes too, I am sure, but not that many that a direct comparison becomes impossible.

Not knocking your thread, by the way; I just find the effort to compare MMA, a fairly narrow (near as I can tell) category to TMA, a category so broad as to include almost anything, to be unworkable.

Daniel

 

[MJS]

In all honesty, this is not a realistic comparison. TMA is a large, amorphous term that includes weapon arts, dedicated grappling arts, dedicated striking arts, internal arts, hybrid arts, arts that are essentially about preserving an ancient tradition, arts that are dedicated to sport and competition, arts that really are ancient and arts that are younger than I am.

By nature, you will have training methods in TMA that will run the gamut from highly physical and realistic to highly physical preparation for competition to highly physical for good cardio and fitness to mildly physical but very realistic to hardly physical at all.

By contrast, because MMA is geared around a fairly uniform set of rules, a limited choice of settings (octagon or cage), and geared towards athleticism (helpful for a tournament fight of any art), the training methods will be more uniform and defined.

Some TMAs will train the same way as MMA fighters do. Some will not. The comparison cannot be made without a specific art or specific group being used instead of just "TMA". Even some subgroups would be too broad for a direct comparison. After all, aren't there like a hundred different ryu's of karate with numerous training philosophies and skill sets?

MMA vs. Taekwondo is a comparison that can be made: both have a sportive element for one. There are different varieties of taekwondoists, but there are not so many as to make direct comparison impossible,and there are different varieties of MMA athletes too, I am sure, but not that many that a direct comparison becomes impossible.

Not knocking your thread, by the way; I just find the effort to compare MMA, a fairly narrow (near as I can tell) category to TMA, a category so broad as to include almost anything, to be unworkable.

Daniel

I was actually responding to what Tez stated. She said, if I'm reading correctly, that she trains both, the same way. The typical things that we'll see in a MMA fight, ie: a front kick/push kick, a roundhouse kick, a jab, cross, hook, uppercut, the basic hand and foot techniques, are all found in pretty much every art out there. However, the way that they're thrown will vary. I highly doubt I kick the way a TKD person would, and the same would go for Muay Thai, yet, the kicks are relatively the same, but the way I kick, vs. TKD, vs. MT, will vary.

I breakdown the 2 this way:

MMA: What we see in the cage. Anyone who trains for the ring, amature competition or pro events.

TMA: I lump everyone else into this group. TKD, Shotokan, Goju, Kenpo, etc. While those arts do compete, usually in a tournament setting, point sparring, etc., while those arts and some of their practitioners, may add in (such as myself ) things from MMA, ie: grappling, conditioning, etc., their focus is not the same as what you'd see of a MMAist.

So yes, the TMA person will focus on a number of things, ie: weapons, kata, SD, etc., the MMA skill set is smaller. Smaller meaning, they are not focusing on weapons, kata or things of that nature, because it doesnt fit in with their goals. Nothing wrong with that, as I'm simply just trying to seperate the 2.

Hope that clarified.

 

[Xinglu]

I agree with this, however, if this holds true, then why have I read posts, not from you, in which people state that the MMA training is better?

There is no accounting for ignorant statements. On either side of the discussion

As K831 stated, we're talking about the best case example. Is every 20 yo MMA fanboy on the same level as the above mentioned? Of course, I'd also say that it would depend on the situation. IIRC, wasn't there a kickboxer, who was gunned down, quite a while back, in the middle of the street?

You're in fantasy land if you think that good TMA guys haven't been gunned down. Furthermore, you're in fantasy land if you think there is anything your TMA can do for you against a gun anywhere past a meter (and I'm being generous, in my direct experience, most can't pull it off even at a meter away). I have an open challenge to anyone, let's load up an air soft gun (or paintball) and I'll prove to you that mid to long range gun defense techniques are nothing more then a fantasy requiring more luck than skill to pull off.

This is what I dislike....the comments that make the claim that "If it works in the ring, it'll work in the street."

Just like "If it works in the Dojo it will work on the street" The answer to both is: Some times it will and sometimes it won't. It is about the individual and the situation at that point.

People seem to be forgetting that MMA is MIXED MAs, one fighters mixture may be different from another's... the focus is on blending them into one useable package. It could be Xingyi/Judo/BJJ/and boxing, or it could be kenpo/wrestling, or even WC/Sanda/and JJJ. Even in these big MMA gyms, you're getting bits and pieces of many TMAs.

I see MMA as the competitive evolution of what Bruce Lee started (and unfortunately never had the opportunity to complete or refine). I would bet solid money that he would be a supporter of what MMA has done for the MA community.

Having trained in several TMAs myself, I find my personal fighting style to be a blend. Although I do Kenpo, I do not fight like a Kenpoka. I do Neijia, yet I am not entirely a Neijia fighter. I have recently taken up BJJ, but I'm not entirely a BJJ player. I don't think the way most in those arts do, nor do I want to. I am influenced by each but not defined by each.

I also want to address something someone on here said (I can't remember who and I don't want to post twice: some one said or implied that The Gracies couldn't take on multiple opponents which further implies that BJJ cannot be applied in a multiple attacker situation.

I have a buddy of mine from the Army, we were mugged (or they attempted) one night. At the time my only MA experience was Kenpo and a little Xingyi, he was a BJJ player all the way. There were five of them two of us I took out two of the guys and he took out three. He never once went to the ground, but he applied his BJJ while standing! He achieved by positioning (much like aikido) and using quick high percentage movements.

So having had this experience, I always think "yeah okay, not a practical SD system" It is all about how YOU train and what YOUR mindset is, even if your school/gym/dojo doesn't train it, there is no reason you can't do it on your own or after class! -OR- find a place that does!

 

[MJS]

There is no accounting for ignorant statements. On either side of the discussion

You're in fantasy land if you think that good TMA guys haven't been gunned down. Furthermore, you're in fantasy land if you think there is anything your TMA can do for you against a gun anywhere past a meter (and I'm being generous, in my direct experience, most can't pull it off even at a meter away). I have an open challenge to anyone, let's load up an air soft gun (or paintball) and I'll prove to you that mid to long range gun defense techniques are nothing more then a fantasy requiring more luck than skill to pull off.

LOL, I find it funny, because I think you're misunderstanding my posts here. Please, show me where I said that a TMA student would not get shot? Show me where I said or made a claim that I was an expert in gun disarms? If you read what I was replying to, rather than making assumptions, you'd have seen that I was replying to the statement SgtMac made here. I got the distinct impression from that post, that he was basically saying that those mentioned folks, would always come out on top. Also, as I've said many times, at least there are some quality disarms out there, that will offer something. I'd rather have that, than nothing at all. *edit* For clarification, I do agree, that past arms reach, you're pretty much up the creek. Within arms reach...yes, IMO, you do stand a good chance of getting control or a disarm.

Just like "If it works in the Dojo it will work on the street" The answer to both is: Some times it will and sometimes it won't. It is about the individual and the situation at that point.

Oh no, there ya go again, painting me with that same brush. . Seriously though....if you've really taken the time to read any of my posts, you'd have seen that when it comes to people making claims that things will definately work, I'm the first to say that I dont care whether it works for them, I want to make sure it works for ME, and I"M the one doing it.

People seem to be forgetting that MMA is MIXED MAs, one fighters mixture may be different from another's... the focus is on blending them into one useable package. It could be Xingyi/Judo/BJJ/and boxing, or it could be kenpo/wrestling, or even WC/Sanda/and JJJ. Even in these big MMA gyms, you're getting bits and pieces of many TMAs.

Whos forgetting? I know I'm not. . I agree with this, said it many times. I've said that while things from TMA are in MMA, the application is whats different.

I see MMA as the competitive evolution of what Bruce Lee started (and unfortunately never had the opportunity to complete or refine). I would bet solid money that he would be a supporter of what MMA has done for the MA community.

I agree.

Having trained in several TMAs myself, I find my personal fighting style to be a blend. Although I do Kenpo, I do not fight like a Kenpoka. I do Neijia, yet I am not entirely a Neijia fighter. I have recently taken up BJJ, but I'm not entirely a BJJ player. I don't think the way most in those arts do, nor do I want to. I am influenced by each but not defined by each.

Kenpo, Arnis, BJJ...those are the 3 that I train, those are the 3 that I feel blend very well for me. I dont mix them to make up my own style, but after training the Kenpo and Arnis for as long as I have, when I'm running thru techs., sometimes it just happens. I'm not thinking, "I'm going to do this or that." again, it just happens.

I also want to address something someone on here said (I can't remember who and I don't want to post twice: some one said or implied that The Gracies couldn't take on multiple opponents which further implies that BJJ cannot be applied in a multiple attacker situation.

I have a buddy of mine from the Army, we were mugged (or they attempted) one night. At the time my only MA experience was Kenpo and a little Xingyi, he was a BJJ player all the way. There were five of them two of us I took out two of the guys and he took out three. He never once went to the ground, but he applied his BJJ while standing! He achieved by positioning (much like aikido) and using quick high percentage movements.

It was probably me that made that comment, but anyways.....yup, I've said that many times as well...that some BJJ techs., with slight modification, can be applied while standing. Sure, I see nothing wrong with doing that, using 1 person as a momentary shield against someone else, etc.

So having had this experience, I always think "yeah okay, not a practical SD system" It is all about how YOU train and what YOUR mindset is, even if your school/gym/dojo doesn't train it, there is no reason you can't do it on your own or after class! -OR- find a place that does!

Agreed. Again, I've said the same thing. Guess the big difference is, are people willing to take on that task? Are they willing to go that extra step? If so, great, then yes, I'd be much more inclined to say that those people would stand a better chance. But if you dont, then no, I stand by what I've said before.