Typical Comebacks....

[MJS]

that we hear in the martial arts. Usually, anytime there is an art vs art discussion, it will usually involve people from the TMA camp and the MMA camp. Both sides will passionately debate back and forth on the pros and cons of each, and we usually see, amongst the bickering, remarks that are made. For example...We'll have the TMA group say that if they're on the ground, they'll simply eye gouge the grappler. This comment is usually met with something along the lines of, "Yeah, and the grappler can do the same thing."

We hear that the TMA group trains for the street, and the MMA comeback is that the MMAist can fight in the street as well. We hear the TMA folks say that they can better defend against weapons, to which is met with something along the lines of, no matter who the person is, if faced with a weapon, you're pretty much screwed.

So, while reading one recent thread, the comment of rules came up. It was said that MMA is more rule based than TMA. The comment was that all arts have rules. So...this brings us to the point of this thread. What sparked this thread was the following:

Link

"Everyone trains with rules. Sometimes they are fouls and enviroment rules as in a combat sport, other times they are more even more restrictive. Rules like "Attack this way, and I will defend, after your initial attack go with whatever I do."


If we really look at this, it makes sense. I mean think about it....no matter what art you do, when you spar (if you spar) there are rules. No groin shots, no hits to the back, no kicks to the knee, etc. Now, during techniques, while those areas are not hit per se, they are still targeted. So, we simulate the eye shot, the groin shot, the knee shot, etc.

So, from the TMA point of view, the line of thinking, I'm guessing is that while contact may not be made, and if it is, its light, the student is being conditioned to hit those areas. If the "you fight like you train" mantra holds true, then the line of thinking tends to be that the MMAist, will still be operating under the rule set, because they're conditioned for the ring mindset. In other words, if you never train or simulate an elbow to the back, that probably won't be something you'd think of doing in the real world.

Thoughts on this? For the record, this is simply my view point from what I've seen and continue to see on various forums. It doesn't necessarily reflect my full opinion on the subject, although there is some that I both agree and disagree with.

 

[Andrew Green]

So, from the TMA point of view, the line of thinking, I'm guessing is that while contact may not be made, and if it is, its light, the student is being conditioned to hit those areas. If the "you fight like you train" mantra holds true, then the line of thinking tends to be that the MMAist, will still be operating under the rule set, because they're conditioned for the ring mindset. In other words, if you never train or simulate an elbow to the back, that probably won't be something you'd think of doing in the real world.

Any "sport" fighter is well aware of "foul shots" and how to use them. I think what you would find is not so much a inability to use attacks that are against the rules that are trained under, but more likely people putting them in positions where they are "safe" under the rules, but vulnerable to those fouls as they generally don't have to worry about them.

That said I doubt anyone else is better off as no one is training with hard contact and certain strikes allowed.

The other thing to remember is many "sport" martial arts schools don't keep everything "by the rules" in training. Just as a good number of traditional schools don't. They might enter stop and go point fighting tournaments, but practice mostly continuous sparring in class, possibly with a few "illegal" techniques or targets thrown in.

MMA has its roots in "no rules" fighting, and a lot of that remains in many places. Some even through in weapons once and a while

IMO hard contact is the most important thing to keep things realistic and to get the best training.

Think of it this way:

Football has evolved a lot, there are rules now that weren't there before, there are all sorts of fouls and a ton of safety equipment.

Team A trains like any football team, plays games, trains hard, etc.

Team B says team A is a watered down version, because of the rules and safety equipment. So instead they play touch football and practice static tackling drills against compliant opponents, often using techniques that are illegal in "sport" football.

Which team is going to have the better team, even if all the fouls are removed? (Keep in mind that team A, like any real football team, is well aware of a good many fouls and perfectly capable of executing them)

 

[MJS]

Any "sport" fighter is well aware of "foul shots" and how to use them. I think what you would find is not so much a inability to use attacks that are against the rules that are trained under, but more likely people putting them in positions where they are "safe" under the rules, but vulnerable to those fouls as they generally don't have to worry about them.

That said I doubt anyone else is better off as no one is training with hard contact and certain strikes allowed.

The other thing to remember is many "sport" martial arts schools don't keep everything "by the rules" in training. Just as a good number of traditional schools don't. They might enter stop and go point fighting tournaments, but practice mostly continuous sparring in class, possibly with a few "illegal" techniques or targets thrown in.

MMA has its roots in "no rules" fighting, and a lot of that remains in many places. Some even through in weapons once and a while

IMO hard contact is the most important thing to keep things realistic and to get the best training.

Think of it this way:

Football has evolved a lot, there are rules now that weren't there before, there are all sorts of fouls and a ton of safety equipment.

Team A trains like any football team, plays games, trains hard, etc.

Team B says team A is a watered down version, because of the rules and safety equipment. So instead they play touch football and practice static tackling drills against compliant opponents, often using techniques that are illegal in "sport" football.

Which team is going to have the better team, even if all the fouls are removed? (Keep in mind that team A, like any real football team, is well aware of a good many fouls and perfectly capable of executing them)

Good post Andrew and I don't necessarily disagree with you. Then again, on the other hand, you hear people talking, or at least I do, about weapons training. You complete your disarm, and you hand the weapon back to your partner. Is it possible, that by conditioning yourself to do this, that if you were really doing this disarm, that without thinking, you could hand the weapon back to your attacker, rather than either keeping it, or dropping it?

Of course, we have the Fight Quest shows. Personally, I enjoyed the show, and thought Jim and Doug were great! However, we repeatedly saw them and heard them comment on their going to the ground. 2 episodes that come to mind were the Krav Maga and Kajukenbo shows. They both commented that they were so used to going to the ground in the cage, that subconsciously, they did it when fighting on the show, putting them in bad positions. I'm pressed for time right now, but I can provide clips on this, if need be.

Regarding the football example and static drills. I don't know about other Kenpo schools, and I dont want to speak for all of them, but I often do spontaneous, random technique drills. This is done quarter to half speed, alive with resistance. So my partner will randomly attack. I have no idea what he's going to do. So ,say he starts with a right punch. I'll begin my defense, while at the same time, he is resisting, and countering with other shots, moving to another position, etc. This forces me to adapt, get used to the resistance and movement, as well as take advantage of whatever targets avail themselves to me. More times than not, something is open.

I think its safe to say that it will depend on the school and its focus. Some MMA guys, I'm sure, may have a seperate SD oriented class, where others may not, with the focus solely on functioning in the ring. OF course, this is why I always say to both sides, that each can benefit from one another.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I think its safe to say that it will depend on the school and its focus. Some MMA guys, I'm sure, may have a seperate SD oriented class, where others may not, with the focus solely on functioning in the ring. OF course, this is why I always say to both sides, that each can benefit from one another.

And that is the core of it.......anyone who disagrees with this point is too dogmatic to grow. Both sides of this argument have validity, and it's for each of us to take what is useful.....and leave the rest......there I go with the Bruce Lee references again!

 

[Guardian]

And that is the core of it.......anyone who disagrees with this point is too dogmatic to grow. Both sides of this argument have validity, and it's for each of us to take what is useful.....and leave the rest......there I go with the Bruce Lee references again!

You might go with the Bruce Lee references, but if he was right, might as well use those references.