The potential of TMA

[Headhunter]

This is really a narrow view of the situation. There are far more reasons for the decline of an art.
How about a real deal system that was lax in their standards over time?

A narrow minded view from Hanzou? Wow big surprise lol

 

[hoshin1600]

That could certainly be the case as well. The question is after years/decades/centuries of that lax instruction, could such a style be salvaged? Add on the fact that TMAs are notorious for not being open to change within their systems.

I am thinking of my own art of Uechi-ryu. There are some really effective fighters who are just out right scary in the system but there are some that couldn't fight there way out of a wet paper bag. The system itself is intact. It's the individual who is good or that sucks. However in turn sucky teachers make poor students. My point is its not an all or nothing situation. Just because some teachers are bad doesn't mean the entire style is lost.
We could turn it around and say BJJ sucks and is a lost cause because not all practioners are good.

 

[Hanzou]

I am thinking of my own art of Uechi-ryu. There are some really effective fighters who are just out right scary in the system but there are some that couldn't fight there way out of a wet paper bag. The system itself is intact. It's the individual who is good or that sucks. However in turn sucky teachers make poor students. My point is its not an all or nothing situation. Just because some teachers are bad doesn't mean the entire style is lost.
We could turn it around and say BJJ sucks and is a lost cause because not all practioners are good.

They're really effective fighters based on what standard? In the case of Bjj, we know that the top exponents of the style have ended up becoming strong fighters in MMA, and the style itself is a mainstay for just about every professional fighter in the world. Where's Uechi Ryu in that particular standard?

Now, you may feel that Uechi Ryu is better represented elsewhere, but for that to be valid, you're going to need a different standard that can be verified like MMA.

 

[hoshin1600]

They're really effective fighters based on what standard? .

its based on any standard you would like to apply.
i know people who hold MMA records, boxing records, professional law enforcement and just plain street fight or bounce. if i use those that i know that do have good fight records as a linear scale then compare that to others who are better who may not step in the ring then we can create a metric of fighting ability. its not rocket science. you can tell who is who as soon as you step on the floor and if the pro fighters tell me "that guy scares the bejesus out of me" then i can say with some amount of accuracy that the guy knows how to fight.

your trying to play the "only MMA counts" game. thats fine with me. there are by far more TMA practitioners in MMA then you realize. remember its mixed martial arts not just BJJ and Muay Thai (which is an TMA btw). so if they hold a 5th dan in a TMA then go and cross train it doesnt take away their past training. they still train and often teach their TMA.

 

[Flying Crane]

There's middle ground, there's things that fit into different categories, there's lots of things. These are kind of 5 archetypes, not 5 absolutes.

For example, Hapkido by intent is a Martial Science, because it's purely focused on self defense. But by practice it's more of an Art, because it takes a long time before you're proficient enough in it to be useful.

And while I listed the respect and attitude as a "pro" of the "martial art", I'm sure most boxing schools that are designed as an outreach to youth in the community are going to teach a lot of those principles as well. Maybe in a slightly different way, but they will.

I would argue that by virtue, a Martial Art should teach with the "get it right the first time" method and get any bad habits out of the artist right away, while a martial science should be about getting people hitting pads and doing drills and then correcting them over time. Sports will depend on how soon you want to compete, if you want dirty technique now or clean moves in a couple years. But that's only to fit the archetype as I described.

My Master uses the proprioception approach - let the student work through the technique and shape and polish it over years. It works in Martial Art because it's a few years before you see results, and it works in a Martial Science because you can get immediate results faster that way.

I have a different teaching method I'd like to use - break all bad habits as they're noticed. But I don't use this method at my school because I'm not the master. This would be good for quickly accelerating someone through the Art approach I mention, once the student gets over the steep learning curve (if they can get over that steep learning curve while I'm busy hounding them). But I can also see it as a way to break people of bad habits in a sport or science (i.e. if they keep dropping their guard, smash 'em upside the head until they learn to keep their guard up...gently, though).

So these aren't all set in stone, but they are kind of archetypes I see.

I am curious to know how you came up with your arch-types and how you define them. Because I know folks who use the same terminology but would disagree with your descriptions.

 

[Hanzou]

its based on any standard you would like to apply.
i know people who hold MMA records, boxing records, professional law enforcement and just plain street fight or bounce. if i use those that i know that do have good fight records as a linear scale then compare that to others who are better who may not step in the ring then we can create a metric of fighting ability. its not rocket science. you can tell who is who as soon as you step on the floor and if the pro fighters tell me "that guy scares the bejesus out of me" then i can say with some amount of accuracy that the guy knows how to fight.

your trying to play the "only MMA counts" game. thats fine with me. there are by far more TMA practitioners in MMA then you realize. remember its mixed martial arts not just BJJ and Muay Thai (which is an TMA btw). so if they hold a 5th dan in a TMA then go and cross train it doesnt take away their past training. they still train and often teach their TMA.

No, I'm trying to apply an objective standard beyond anecdotes and legends about Mr. Miyagis living in garages who can kill 20 people with one hand behind their back. I can name quite a few professional MMA fighters whose art is almost entirely BJJ-based, and we can also point to Bjj being almost a requirement for MMA itself. I can't do the same for Uechi-Ryu, but like I said, that's just one standard we can apply. I'd be very interested in hearing about another one that is equally as objective.

 

[skribs]

I am curious to know how you came up with your arch-types and how you define them. Because I know folks who use the same terminology but would disagree with your descriptions.

Based on my opinion on what you can get out of martial arts (i.e. what type of goals someone may have for taking the arts):

• Combat & Self Defense
• Sport & Competition
• Wellness
• Expression

The first two should be pretty obvious what I'm talking about, so let's move onto the others. Wellness could mean physical conditioning, but it can also mean balance, flexibility, emotional wellness (it's better than going to the bar after a bad day at work), memory (especially if your art has forms), and coordination.

Then there's expression, which could be demonstrations, tricking, integration with dance or gymnastics, or simply to be a stunt man for movies and shows.

So the first idea, Combat & Self Defense, I split into Martial Art and Martial Science. (Notice both are "martial"). The other three goals fit into the three obvious archetypes. Why "art" and "science"? Because I feel the forms are more artsy.

 

[pdg]

However in turn sucky teachers make poor students. My point is its not an all or nothing situation. Just because some teachers are bad doesn't mean the entire style is lost.

A little is down to the student as well.

If all student only ever listen to what the teacher says then the style (or whatever) as a whole necessarily follows a downward spiral - nobody can convey everything they know so some gets lost.

In other endeavours, it's expected that extra learning takes place - if someone gets a degree in computer science, or medicine, or animal husbandry, and then decides they know everything there is about that subject they're not going to be very good going forward. And if they choose to teach another and expect that person to only accept what they say the next will be worse.

 

[Flying Crane]

Based on my opinion on what you can get out of martial arts (i.e. what type of goals someone may have for taking the arts):

• Combat & Self Defense
• Sport & Competition
• Wellness
• Expression

The first two should be pretty obvious what I'm talking about, so let's move onto the others. Wellness could mean physical conditioning, but it can also mean balance, flexibility, emotional wellness (it's better than going to the bar after a bad day at work), memory (especially if your art has forms), and coordination.

Then there's expression, which could be demonstrations, tricking, integration with dance or gymnastics, or simply to be a stunt man for movies and shows.

So the first idea, Combat & Self Defense, I split into Martial Art and Martial Science. (Notice both are "martial"). The other three goals fit into the three obvious archetypes. Why "art" and "science"? Because I feel the forms are more artsy.

I guess I was focused more on your use of “martial science”. I know some folks in the kenpo universe who use that term and they are very precise in how they do things. The root of their approach comes from the older Chinese methods, applied in kenpo training. They would disagree with the notion that rough and dirty is “good enough” for now, and maybe things will get cleaned up later. They are insistent on things being done precisely right, from the beginning.

I personally disagree with the idea that forms are “artsy”. In my experience, they are a very practical tool for building your skills and have nothing to do with artistic expression.

I do realize that some systems create forms specifically for theatrical performance. This is a newer use of forms and is inconsistent with their original purpose. If your system does this, then do not assume others are also doing it.

As for the use of the word “art” in “martial arts”, it does not have to do with artistic expression. Check out the definition on Webster’s: Definition of ART where the first entry is “skill acquired by experience, study, or observation”. That is the appropriate definition of “art” in this context.

 

[skribs]

I guess I was focused more on your use of “martial science”. I know some folks in the kenpo universe who use that term and they are very precise in how they do things. The root of their approach comes from the older Chinese methods, applied in kenpo training. They would disagree with the notion that rough and dirty is “good enough” for now, and maybe things will get cleaned up later. They are insistent on things being done precisely right, from the beginning.

I personally disagree with the idea that forms are “artsy”. In my experience, they are a very practical tool for building your skills and have nothing to do with artistic expression.

I do realize that some systems create forms specifically for theatrical performance. This is a newer use of forms and is inconsistent with their original purpose. If your system does this, then do not assume others are also doing it.

As for the use of the word “art” in “martial arts”, it does not have to do with artistic expression. Check out the definition on Webster’s: Definition of ART where the first entry is “skill acquired by experience, study, or observation”. That is the appropriate definition of “art” in this context.

I needed something to differentiate "art" from "science". And obviously these aren't going to be perfect, as many arts have different ways of doing things.

It's merely a model to think about their approaches.

 

[Flying Crane]

I needed something to differentiate "art" from "science". And obviously these aren't going to be perfect, as many arts have different ways of doing things.

It's merely a model to think about their approaches.

Well, it comes across as if you are defining what other people do. Whenever you do that you run the risk of those people telling you that you are wrong. Personally, if it is a system in which I have no personal experience then I let those people define it for themselves. And even in those where I do have experience, someone in a different school might have a very different experience from me. So there are land mines all over that field.

I don’t see a lot of need for the categorizations. Nothing really fits them. Anyone can pursue training in any method, for any ends that they desire. It’s just too wide open.

 

[skribs]

Well, it comes across as if you are defining what other people do. Whenever you do that you run the risk of those people telling you that you are wrong. Personally, if it is a system in which I have no personal experience then I let those people define it for themselves. And even in those where I do have experience, someone in a different school might have a very different experience from me. So there are land mines all over that field.

I don’t see a lot of need for the categorizations. Nothing really fits them. Anyone can pursue training in any method, for any ends that they desire. It’s just too wide open.

I AM defining what other people do. But I'm trying to take hundreds of arts and give them 5 categories. Each art is different, each school within the art has differences as well. You can go to five KKW TKD schools and probably get at least 5 training styles.

But what I'm doing is trying to take a look at what makes some arts similar and some arts different.

 

[Flying Crane]

I AM defining what other people do. But I'm trying to take hundreds of arts and give them 5 categories. Each art is different, each school within the art has differences as well. You can go to five KKW TKD schools and probably get at least 5 training styles.

But what I'm doing is trying to take a look at what makes some arts similar and some arts different.

Ok but I don’t see it as fruitful. Too many different methods that you are trying to define. And every one can turn around and tell you that you are wrong. I dunno, does it lead to anything?

 

[Deleted member 39746]

What about the large proportion of people who aren't doing it for self defence?

We dont talk about their kind around these parts.


As for a response for the rest of that. Neither crotchet or welding prefixes itself with anything to think either has any element of either in it. So i wasn't saying that.

 

[hoshin1600]

I'm trying to apply an objective standard beyond anecdotes and legends about Mr. Miyagis living in garages who can kill 20 people with one hand behind their back

well then we agree because that is not what i was talking about either

we can also point to Bjj being almost a requirement for MMA itself.

agreed again. i also didnt say that all you need is karate. in fact many of the people i had in mind, that i feel are good fighters also train in BJJ as well as firearms.

your straw manning and trying to weasel your way out of a corner. all i said was that i have trained in a TMA that has both good and bad martial artists. you took exception to that, asking how do i know they are effective. i know because they are and i can apply my standards or your standards. it doesnt matter good is good. your basic argument is that if i say someone is an effective fighter, you dont believe me. they need to have fought in the octagon and i need to empirically prove it. i could just as easily turn the tables and say that i dont trust your subjective opinion. what is your MMA record? how many years have you trained in a hard style karate? should i trust your opinion on anything?

 

[Hanzou]

well then we agree because that is not what i was talking about either


agreed again. i also didnt say that all you need is karate. in fact many of the people i had in mind, that i feel are good fighters also train in BJJ as well as firearms.

your straw manning and trying to weasel your way out of a corner. all i said was that i have trained in a TMA that has both good and bad martial artists. you took exception to that, asking how do i know they are effective. i know because they are and i can apply my standards or your standards. it doesnt matter good is good. your basic argument is that if i say someone is an effective fighter, you dont believe me. they need to have fought in the octagon and i need to empirically prove it. i could just as easily turn the tables and say that i dont trust your subjective opinion. what is your MMA record? how many years have you trained in a hard style karate? should i trust your opinion on anything?

Incorrect. I'm arguing that if a style is producing effective fighters we should see the top exponents of said style appear in professional martial arts to some degree.

 

[skribs]

Incorrect. I'm arguing that if a style is producing effective fighters we should see the top exponents of said style appear in professional martial arts to some degree.

The top exponents of those arts may not be interested in competing. Or they may compete in competitions for that art. For example, Taekwondo fighters will typically migrate to World Taekwondo sparring. So even though the art isn't super popular in MMA, it still has a professional fighting association.

In many arts, with the focus of self defense, people take that art so they don't have to fight. It kind of muddies that goal if you go into a professional match to fight.

And then there's professional fighters that take concepts from other arts and apply it to professional fighting. There was a thread about a boxer on the main forum who uses concepts similar to Wing Chun and Shotokan Karate in boxing. Even though he looks like a boxer and fights like a boxer, those concepts are there. And it's actually considered innovative in boxing, even though these concepts are hundreds of years old.

 

[skribs]

Ok but I don’t see it as fruitful. Too many different methods that you are trying to define. And every one can turn around and tell you that you are wrong. I dunno, does it lead to anything?

You don't have to see it as fruitful. I do. And that's why I do it and you don't. Just like anything in life.

 

[Hanzou]

The top exponents of those arts may not be interested in competing.

A common excuse not rooted in reality. Typically what happens such people have to dump their TMA and take different systems completely.

Or they may compete in competitions for that art. For example, Taekwondo fighters will typically migrate to World Taekwondo sparring. So even though the art isn't super popular in MMA, it still has a professional fighting association.

I'm well aware of TKD's competitive system, but I'm unaware of any from Uechi Ryu. Additionally, I'm not aware of any people who migrated from the top levels of either sports and transitioned over into MMA. It's happened in Wrestling, Judo, Bjj, and Kickboxing, but not TKD or Uechi Ryu.

In many arts, with the focus of self defense, people take that art so they don't have to fight. It kind of muddies that goal if you go into a professional match to fight.

There's plenty of arts that appear frequently in MMA who have a self defense focus. So nah.

 

[skribs]

A common excuse not rooted in reality. Typically what happens such people have to dump their TMA and take different systems completely.

Basketball players have a learning curve before playing Tight End in the NFL. Michael Jordan sucked at baseball. I should destroy a boxer at a kicking contest and they should destroy me in the ring. I've seen people go into TKD tournaments and get disqualified because their fighting style breaks the rules. It only makes sense that if you're going to learn a sport, you need to learn the rules and techniques of that sport.

I'm well aware of TKD's competitive system, but I'm unaware of any from Uechi Ryu. Additionally, I'm not aware of any people who migrated from the top levels of either sports and transitioned over into MMA. It's happened in Wrestling, Judo, Bjj, and Kickboxing, but not TKD or Uechi Ryu.

In the case of Taekwondo, it's because Taekwondo is a game of who can kick the other person in the head. It's literally designed to be something hard to do, because it's more impressive when you do it. Taekwondo actively limits the effective martial techniques in it's sparring to make you use harder techniques.

Wrestling, boxing, judo, etc. are all easier techniques to effectively land, is why they're more common in MMA.

There's plenty of arts that appear frequently in MMA who have a self defense focus. So nah.

There's arts that are split between self defense and competition. Judo, BJJ, and Karate I'd classify this way. Boxing, Muay Thai, and Wrestling are more competition focused.

I don't watch too much MMA, but I haven't heard of people going into MMA with Krav Maga or Kajukenbo. My Dad's had conversations with professional MMA fighters about why Hapkido isn't in there, and it's because most of the techniques that Hapkido uses are banned in the cage.