TMA vs. RBSD vs. MMA

[Steve]

No worries.

As far as MMA kata is concerned can anyone think of what they would consist of? Like Judo's Kime No kata? Interesting!
yep a blatent attempt to draw the thread off the path it was on lol! ( but MMA kata would be interesting all the same!)

I actually snorted out loud when I thought of something like Gynastica Natural as a Kata.

Trying to be serious about it, maybe some of the flow drills could be considered (in a very... VERY loose way) a kata. The standard triangle to armbar to omoplata drill, for example.

I still like the idea of an entire school doing Gynastica Natural as a kata.

(anyone not familiar with the term, it's a Brazilian conditioning routine popular among many BJJ guys)

[yt]HDG8HacqGx4[/yt]

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

I practice Bagua,and Hsing Yi mostly they would be considered TMA. I suppose at one pont they would be considered RBSD after all they were based on reality and fights. I suppose they would be considered MMA because most of the time someone who studied one of these arts also studied another art. So what we are left with is a different word for the same thing which in the end is simply defending yourself nothing new about that.

 

[arnisador]

So, what distinguishes Judo in your mind from BJJ? BJJ is all Judo, really. Well, pre WW2 Judo or modern, Kosen Judo depending upon who you ask. It's a different focus, to be sure, with a different ruleset for competition and an emphasis on a part of combat that has been marginalized in modern, competitive Judo. But essentially, BJJ, like modern Judo, is a derivative of Pre-WW2 Judo.

I agree that today's BJJ is largely pre-WWII Judo as preserved in many ways in the Kosen tradition. But the change in rules is really significant, and the BJJ point system emphasizes going from stand-up to gaining the mount via steps. That's one big change: Position before technique, whereas (Kodokan) Judo is kuzushi before technique. (Yes, yes, the kuzushi is part of the technique--please don't interrupt my analogy!) The ground-oriented mindset, the addition of wrestling-style takedowns, and the emphasis on groundfighting vice throwing as a means of self-defense all distinguish it from traditional Judo, in my mind, and the emphasis on groundfighting is for the most part a more recent fad. Certainly, reasonable minds can disagree on this!

I would argue that many people don't consider BJJ's approach as a TMA only because the culture of Brazil and of BJJ are not what we traditionally think of when we think martial arts.

I don't believe that should be an issue but I grant that I'm subject to the same bias! The UFC challenges changed the landscape of teh martial arts. That's new.

 

[tshadowchaser]

Because I do not want to read through all 4 pages of this before replying I am jumping ahead and just answering the original question.
I would chose the art I have done for the last 35+ years the way I do it now. Call it any of the 3 listed because it involves aspects of all three. That is the way it was taught by the original GM and my instructor. I may no longer belong to the organization but I still teach the concepts, forms, SD, throws, etc. that where taught to me way back then.
So I ask why can not they all be within the same art. It seems to me I have seen more than one TMA that encompasses all within its’ core curriculum if you know enough about the art

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Good body mechanics are simply good whether they be in MMA, TMA or RBSD. Really all those are labels that in the end have very little value. What is important is to train and instill good movements, conditioning, mind set and spirit. That is what is important. In the end it really in many ways is the same.

I personally know effective MMA, Brazilian Jiujitsu, Modern Arnis, Kali, Karate, Tae Kwon Do, RBSD people. Many who have used there training for personal protection. Find what is right for you and what you enjoy training in and work hard at it. In the end their simply are no absolutes!

 

[Steve]

I agree that today's BJJ is largely pre-WWII Judo as preserved in many ways in the Kosen tradition. But the change in rules is really significant, and the BJJ point system emphasizes going from stand-up to gaining the mount via steps. That's one big change: Position before technique, whereas (Kodokan) Judo is kuzushi before technique. (Yes, yes, the kuzushi is part of the technique--please don't interrupt my analogy!) The ground-oriented mindset, the addition of wrestling-style takedowns, and the emphasis on groundfighting vice throwing as a means of self-defense all distinguish it from traditional Judo, in my mind, and the emphasis on groundfighting is for the most part a more recent fad. Certainly, reasonable minds can disagree on this!

Actually, I agree completely. Understand, I'm not arguing that BJJ IS modern Judo. I'm arguing that it is as much a TMA as modern Judo. The two are like step brothers, both from the same mother but with different fathers.

 

[arnisador]

I suppose they would be considered MMA because most of the time someone who studied one of these arts also studied another art.

Yes, it seems to me that most of the people who studied CMAs before the current times studied several of them, and this was intentional. In many cases I think of it more as an extension than a mixing (study generic Shaolin style, then add a detailed snake style) but there are lots of examples of true mixing. It's a common theme, isn't it--the CMAer who mixes monkey footwork with mantis hands to create a more functional art? Isn't that the theme of Snake in the Eagle's Shadow:

In the duel, Chien [played by Jackie Chan] merges his "cat style" with snake style to finally defeat the Eagle Claw master. Chien announces that he will call his technique "Cat's Claw", but the Old man suggest that he give the technique the name "Snake in the Eagle's Shadow".

 

[The Last Legionary]

On another forum I see constant bashing of TMA, usually because of their use of forms. Usually by people who then go and string a few techniques or drills together and fail to see the relation. Is there really a difference between a kata that simulates a 1 on 1 encounter, and working a few transitions on the ground, other than one has a live partner and he other doesn't?

 

[MBuzzy]

We have kind of skirted around an issue that I consider central to this question. The definition of a TMA. We can all pretty much agree what MMA and RBSD is, but the definition of a TMA is fairly fluid and debatable.

Personally, I consider a TMA to be a style with a standardized teaching style and curriculum that relies on tradition, history, and standards. I would also say that the majority of TMA include forms, kata, hyung, etc, which is generally not there in MMA and RBSD. I suppose that the existance of forms is a major discriminating factor.

 

[Steve]

On another forum I see constant bashing of TMA, usually because of their use of forms. Usually by people who then go and string a few techniques or drills together and fail to see the relation. Is there really a difference between a kata that simulates a 1 on 1 encounter, and working a few transitions on the ground, other than one has a live partner and he other doesn't?

I might be able to explain the perspective, if you're interested. It really has nothing to do with drills and transitions. It has to do with what you do AFTER the drills and transitions. It's a fundamental difference in training methodology. It's an argument against forms as a practical way to learn anything more than the first part of a technique. Thornton, in his infamous articles on Aliveness, calls it the "three I's" of instruction. First is Introduction, then Isolation, and then finally Integration.

Kata, at best according to this methodology, is stuck at Introduction. This is the part where you drill without resistance. You work on the motion, focus on the details.

Check it out at the source. It's a long article, but I promise that even if you don't agree with it, if you read the entire thing thoughtfully, you'll understand and hopefully respect the system of BJJ. It's not just guys rolling around randomly.

Personally, where he talks about the Three I's, I see that as a pendulum. You start with Introduction, then Isolation, then Integration. Integration, or usually, the failure to integrate, creates a context where you can then go back to Isolation, then Introduction, etc. Back and forth.

I hope this answers your question regarding forms.

 

[Perpetual White Belt]

I think BJJ is one of those transitionals, like EPAK. It's kinda both, 10 years from now will be seen as traditional. My guess.

Me, TMA.
Hey, I like swords.

I think it's already heading that way. BJJ's the new Judo. (so it's more or less come full circle) I'm also with Bob on the sword thing.

 

[shihansmurf]

I, too, like swords.

I have to say that ,ultimately, we are all doing the same fundamental things.
The TMA folks like to dress it up under the guise of "character building" , the MMA guys like to disguise it(thinly) as competitive sport, and the RBDS people like to pretend they are commandos. They are all learning fighting skills in a manner that the practitioner finds palatable. We all have our preference, and there seems to be an art to cater to us all.

I think that all of these divisions are not but pointless distractions. Sweat is sweat, blood is blood, skill is skill. I would think that focusing on building solid punching, kicking, and wrestling skills should be enough of a challenge so as not to have to worry about what to call it.

Mark

 

[Sukerkin]

I might be able to explain the perspective, if you're interested. It really has nothing to do with drills and transitions. It has to do with what you do AFTER the drills and transitions. It's a fundamental difference in training methodology. It's an argument against forms as a practical way to learn anything more than the first part of a technique. Thornton, in his infamous articles on Aliveness, calls it the "three I's" of instruction. First is Introduction, then Isolation, and then finally Integration.

Kata, at best according to this methodology, is stuck at Introduction. This is the part where you drill without resistance. You work on the motion, focus on the details.

Check it out at the source. It's a long article, but I promise that even if you don't agree with it, if you read the entire thing thoughtfully, you'll understand and hopefully respect the system of BJJ. It's not just guys rolling around randomly.

Personally, where he talks about the Three I's, I see that as a pendulum. You start with Introduction, then Isolation, then Integration. Integration, or usually, the failure to integrate, creates a context where you can then go back to Isolation, then Introduction, etc. Back and forth.

I hope this answers your question regarding forms.

It will come as no surprise, considering my art, that I disagree .

Looking at the chaps blog, my impression is what we're getting are the views of a youngish, athletic, fighter, concerned only with what he sees as combatatively effective. I wouldn't mind betting that if he continues training and learning, in another couple of decades or so he may revise his opinions.

This does not, of course, mean that he is wrong; just that I think he is only seeing a part of the picture.

 

[Jenna]

If you had to just choose one? And why?

If I had to choose, I would choose the *perfect* art. As would anyone I think. But what is the perfect art? Is there one? The perfect art for me is never going to be the perfect art for anyone else.

I have been in a TMA background for a while but I do try to bolt on RBSD ideas (not necessarily techniques) where I can see an additional benefit from them. I dearly love my Aikido and yet I accept that it is no more a perfect art than I am a perfect practitioner. In spite of all the flaws and the fact that I like to try new stuff, I will never drop my Aikido completely. I still drive a 1986 motor because it *feels* better to me than most newer motors I have tried.

I have no problem with anyone's choice of martial discipline. And but whilst we are all so different, no one system will ever suit everyone.

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[Tez3]

If I had to choose, I would choose the *perfect* art. As would anyone I think. But what is the perfect art? Is there one? The perfect art for me is never going to be the perfect art for anyone else.

I have been in a TMA background for a while but I do try to bolt on RBSD ideas (not necessarily techniques) where I can see an additional benefit from them. I dearly love my Aikido and yet I accept that it is no more a perfect art than I am a perfect practitioner. In spite of all the flaws and the fact that I like to try new stuff, I will never drop my Aikido completely. I still drive a 1986 motor because it *feels* better to me than most newer motors I have tried.

I have no problem with anyone's choice of martial discipline. And but whilst we are all so different, no one system will ever suit everyone.

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

Wise words Jenna!

 

[zDom]

Skipped reading the entire threat as I've seen this hashed and re-hashed and re-re-hashed.

If I moved off somewhere else and had to pick someplace new to work out, assuming I did not simply open up my own place, my decision would be simple:


I would train with the BEST INSTRUCTOR — regardless of style.

 

[Sukerkin]

That's an interesting thought, Scott.

It is indeed what is at the core of the many discourses on similar vein that we've been through here at MT i.e. that it is the committment of the student and the quality of the teacher that makes the real contribution, pretty much, as you say, "regardless of style".