Three questions regarding MMA vs. TMA discussions

[Daniel Sullivan]

I am asking because I am honestly interested in the answer, so please do not turn this into a versus thread.

I do not practice or compete in MMA. When I see MMA and TMA discussions, I notice that any established art that is not MMA and is not strictly competitive and western (such as boxing and wrestling) is automatically lumped into the category of TMA, and not just by MMA proponents.

On the other hand, specifically MMA training seems to me to consist of a fairly singular body of techniques based on what is permitted by the rules and what has become most effective in the competitive environment. To the point that traditional martial arts are no longer the feeders, but specifically MMA geared gyms are the feeders.

So here are my three questions:
1. Why is a singular entity compared to a group so broad that it can include virtually anything, armed or unarmed, strikes or no strikes, competitive element or no sport at all?

And some "TMA" are younger than my parents. Heck, some are younger than I am. How traditional can they really be?

Some "TMA" are entirely competition oriented and include absolutely none of the SD oriented features touted by TMA proponents in the countless versus threads that keep coming up. Other TMA's are weapon arts, some competitive, some not. So why is MMA not being compared to specific systems, such as hapkido or karate rather than to this amorphous category of TMA?

2. Is my perception of MMA as a fairly singular entity accurate? Or is MMA as multifaceted as TMA is?

3. Should there even be a distinction? Realistically, any martial art simply reflects a training, teaching, and cultural approach to the transmission of martial techniques and the how one engages an opponent. Each one, traditional or no, has its strong suit and areas that it does not address as strongly or at all. Some are better than others. Some are more about preserving an ancient art than they are about addressing modern self defense issues. Some are more about personal development and healthy competition.

Thoughts please, and save the one is better than the other for one of the preexisting versus threads.

Daniel

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I think you make some excellent points as simply all martial systems can have quite a few different components that make up their training. The exact same could be said for MMA in that if you are training with GSP or Randy Couture your training may be better or worse than if you are training with the local MMA club. With MMA clubs opening up at a very fast pace and some with little background in training, competition or teaching the person training should really check out what they are getting into. The same holds true for studying in any martial system. Martial practice in the end is a personal journey and each practitioner needs to find what suits them best. For some that will be the local Judo club and for others that may be Krav Maga, etc., etc. Find what works for you and then pour your heart and soul into it and train at the highest level you possibly can.

 

[K831]

I think you have made some great points here.

So here are my three questions:
1. Why is a singular entity compared to a group so broad that it can include virtually anything, armed or unarmed, strikes or no strikes, competitive element or no sport at all?

I have found this interesting as well. I think for one, it would be retty arduous to compare MMA to the many arts lumped into TMA on an individual basis.

Also, TMA is a bit of a martial arts colloquialism. Some of the minor differences in its definition (depending on who you are talking to) creates an ever bigger communication problem in a given thread.

I was "brought up" under the following definitions;

1.) Sporting martial arts - (boxing, MMA, wrestling, BJJ, etc) arts that focus on what will work in the given context and rule set it competes in, and less so on outside factors (SD included).


2.) TMA - arts that focus more on the tradition and customs than its present day combat effectiveness.

3.) Combatives - Arts or hybrid arts whose concern is real life combat efficiency.

Of course there is grey area, as many schools mix, but I find they lean one way or another as a whole. The fact that I opperate under the above definition sometimes makes it hard to get my point across. For example, I have training in American Kenpo schools that I would say was a TMA school. My current AKKI school I consider under the "combatives" umbrella. I have been in TKD schools that were clearly "sporting martial arts" and in TKD/Hapkido whose approach was largely combative.

2. Is my perception of MMA as a fairly singular entity accurate? Or is MMA as multifaceted as TMA is?

I see as you do. More of a singular entity than TMA. It's by degree though.

3. Should there even be a distinction? Realistically, any martial art simply reflects a training, teaching, and cultural approach to the transmission of martial techniques and the how one engages an opponent. Each one, traditional or no, has its strong suit and areas that it does not address as strongly or at all. Some are better than others. Some are more about preserving an ancient art than they are about addressing modern self defense issues. Some are more about personal development and healthy competition.

Yes, I think there should be a distinction because there is a genuine distinction. What a person is training for makes and what a teacher is intending to teach his students to do makes a pretty big difference.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Yes, I think there should be a distinction because there is a genuine distinction. What a person is training for makes and what a teacher is intending to teach his students to do makes a pretty big difference.

Just to clarify: distinction between MMA and the virtually undefinable general category of TMA, between MMA and other specific systems, or something more along the lines of the three part distinction that you laid out?

1.) Sporting martial arts - (boxing, MMA, wrestling, BJJ, etc) arts that focus on what will work in the given context and rule set it competes in, and less so on outside factors (SD included).


2.) TMA - arts that focus more on the tradition and customs than its present day combat effectiveness.

3.) Combatives - Arts or hybrid arts whose concern is real life combat efficiency.

I really like this categorization, though quite a few arts could fall into all three categories, either depending upon which sub group or within an entire group simultaneously.

Taekwondo and Shotokan both could certainly fall into all three within one school. Kendo falls into the first two simultaneously.

Personally, I have gotten to the point where I dislike the term 'TMA,' a legitimate category, but one so broad as to be virtually meaningless, almost (but not quite) as much as I dislike the term 'martial artist,' a nebulous term which has any definition that an individual chooses to attach to it and is often retrofitted whatever group or person from antiquity that the user happens to identify with.

Daniel

 

[K831]

Just to clarify: distinction between MMA and the virtually undefinable general category of TMA, between MMA and other specific systems, or something more along the lines of the three part distinction that you laid out?

Yes, more along the lines of the categorization I mentioned.

I guess my main point in the statement I made above is that I think you are correct in searching for and discussing "distinctions". Many people say and punch is a punch and a kick is a kick and martial arts, TMA and MMA are "just martial arts".

I can't fully agree with that, because I think "purpose" is a very significant aspect.

I like purpose driven things. As an example, (motorcycles, like I did in our other conversation). I have many. I have a bike for motocross, a bike for desert, a bike for trials. On the street, I have a cruiser and sport bike.

Each of these use very similar technology, each has wheels, sprockets, chain, suspension, piston caliper breaks, a tranny etc. All are just motorcycles. But, each is "purpose built". Sure, some of them can be pressed into other rolls if needed, but that doesn't mean there is no distinction, no difference, or that they are all "just as good". It depends on the context of its use. Its intended application makes all the difference.

I know an analogy such as the one above isn't perfect, but I think it clearly makes the point.

Here is a martial arts example; I love boxing. I think it is beautiful. I enjoy the rhythm, footwork and the different styles within boxing. I think there are some foundational things tought in a boxing/kick boxing class that are often lost or rushed through in other more complex systems. I started my younger brothers and will start my son, with boxing basics.

However, as it is typically taught today, its "purpose" (boxing competition) leaves it inadequate for general SD. Could it be pressed into that role? Yes. Is it better in that role than nothing? Yes. But that doesn't mean it is a SD art. It is a competitive art as we see it taught today.

I regularly go to a local boxing club. I do it for practice, for sparring and because I just like boxing. I do it because I can pull from it what I need. One of the clubs I tried out, the coach always came by and said "you need to adjust your stance a little" I say, "if I do, I can't defend against kicks or take downs as well" he would reply, "you wont get kicked or taken down in a boxing match, and we train boxers here."

Purpose. Intended application. If the art, and the teacher, are geared towards one application, that is an important distinction. There are guys at my boxing club who pick me apart in the boxing ring. Outside of that context, I take them apart. I have the same experiences with MMA guys. Some of them hand me my a$$ when we get in the cage. When we go outside of it, I outclass them (not all of them ). Context and application matter.

I hope that long winded explanation clarifies my statement!

I really like this categorization, though quite a few arts could fall into all three categories, either depending upon which sub group or within an entire group simultaneously.

Taekwondo and Shotokan both could certainly fall into all three within one school. Kendo falls into the first two simultaneously.

Absolutely. Lots of overlap with some arts and some schools. Others have laser like focus. I just try and look at which percentage is allocated to what, or which way they are most heavily leaning.

Personally, I have gotten to the point where I dislike the term 'TMA,' a legitimate category, but one so broad as to be virtually meaningless,
Daniel

Agreed.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Actually, I find that vehicular analogies work exceedingly well with almost any subject.

Daniel

 

[Ironcrane]

The different categories of the Martial Arts is more or less, just a general guideline rather then a rule. The more you try to adhere to the strict "rule" of the categories, the more it falls apart due to all the crossover.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Agreed.

I do think that there are some general categories that can be established which are broad enough not to be superfluous but narrow enough to be relevant.

There are cultural categories (KMA, JMA, CMA, etc.), which we use here on MT, and which are relevant. A Japanese school, regardless of art, will have a different flavor and tone from that of a Korean school. Not better or worse; just different. And of course, there are groups of arts that are directly associated with specific cultures or nations.

Then there are categories of arts based on function or based on some interrelation. Weapon arts, internal arts, striking arts, throwing/grappling arts, hybrid arts, or sport/competitive arts for example are all categories based on some function of the art (MMA and kickboxing are both hybrid and competitive arts).

General categories like Karate, for example, which includes systems that are Okinawan, Japanese, Korean, American, and likely other countries, serve reasonably well. Karate based arts give you a general base to know where the another person is coming from in discussions, an idea of what I'm getting into when I go to a school that simply says, 'karate' on the door, even if I do not know what ryu.

Like karate, MMA is a useful category. If my school is an MMA gym, saying so tells people what it is that is going on inside and gives them some idea of what they can expect.

Just to clarify, when I ask if there should even be a distinction, I mean between the gynormous category of TMA and the specific category of MMA. I do think that the distinctions and categories are helpful for discussion and for research purposes. Also for choosing where to train in, what to train in, etc.

As I said on another thread, one can make a workable comparison between MMA and karate, MMA and hapkido, MMA and taekwondo, or MMA and any number of other arts.

But to compare MMA to TMA is, to use a vehicular analogy, is like comparing a Suzuki Hayabusa (a specific motorcycle) to 'traditional bikes.' What constitutes traditional? What are you comparing? What is the intended application of the 'traditional bike?' A traditional bike could be anything from a BMW to a Norton Commando to a Harley Davidson hard tail to a Honda Gold Wing to a Yamaha Virago.

On the other hand, you can compare the Hayabusa to say the Honda Interceptor (a specific sport bike) or to other sport bikes (a category of similar bikes).

Daniel