What Is A TMA?

[K-man]

And so, training like their instructor is more important than addressing obvious holes in their technique.

Not really. I don't look at it as an obvious hole in the training. I was saying that others may suggest that there was a hole. It depends on perspective. I have no desire to fight on the ground and I certainly don't want to fight in a ring. Chances are that I will never need to use my skills in a real situation and even if I did I doubt it would involve staying on the ground. From my perspective there is no hole.

So training like your instructor is only part of it. I would hope that all my students would surpass me in their knowledge and understanding as I have done with a number of mine. I am fortunate to still have a number of guys I look up to. I don't necessarily train as they train and I don't necessarily agree with all they say. But fundamentally the training is the same as it was years ago. The kihon is the same, the kata is the same. The interpretation or application is infinitely variable because that is what makes the system fit your needs. There are no right or wrong interpretations. If I was still in a system that didn't encourage the exploration of the kata then I would agree with your statement of training 'like your instructor'. That, to me, would be mind numbing and I would have given it all away years ago.
:asian:

 

[Hanzou]

Are you suggesting that a combative sport can't be a martial art? Way to not see past your own limited understanding there...

If the sole purpose of the sport is to be a sport, then no it can't be a martial art.

 

[Steve]

Not really. I don't look at it as an obvious hole in the training. I was saying that others may suggest that there was a hole. It depends on perspective. I have no desire to fight on the ground and I certainly don't want to fight in a ring. Chances are that I will never need to use my skills in a real situation and even if I did I doubt it would involve staying on the ground. From my perspective there is no hole.

So training like your instructor is only part of it. I would hope that all my students would surpass me in their knowledge and understanding as I have done with a number of mine. I am fortunate to still have a number of guys I look up to. I don't necessarily train as they train and I don't necessarily agree with all they say. But fundamentally the training is the same as it was years ago. The kihon is the same, the kata is the same. The interpretation or application is infinitely variable because that is what makes the system fit your needs. There are no right or wrong interpretations. If I was still in a system that didn't encourage the exploration of the kata then I would agree with your statement of training 'like your instructor'. That, to me, would be mind numbing and I would have given it all away years ago.
:asian:

In a worst case scenario, you can choose not to fight in a ring. You may not be able to choose not to fight on the ground. That's a hole in the training. But you're right, if you're training for fun, there's nothing wrong with doing what you want. But that doesn't mean the hole is gone. It just means that you're choosing to ignore it, or in denial that it exists.

Is training "fundamentally the same" as your instructor and his/her instructors the most (or perhaps one of the most) important priorities of your style? If yes, you're probably training in a style that self identifies as "Traditional." My opinion remains that this is the simplest and most accurate definition of a traditional martial art. Applying this test, below are how I'd categorize some styles.

Non-traditional: BJJ, Boxing, MMA, TKD (depending on the school, can be either), Krav Maga, Arnis

Traditional: TKD (depending on the school) most Karate styles (maybe all), Judo, Muay Thai, every style of CMA I can think of, Aikido

BJJ, for example, can be considered a traditional MA in some ways, but I don't think it meets the most important test, which is to answer the question above. BJJ continues to evolve and students are encouraged to explore new techniques and tactics. The upside down guard video is a good example of this, even if it's not the wisest tactic for self defense. This doesn't address holes in training, which may exist. It doesn't address the origin of the style. It only answers the question, "Is this style traditional?" And BJJ is not.

 

[Hanzou]

Not really. I don't look at it as an obvious hole in the training. I was saying that others may suggest that there was a hole. It depends on perspective. I have no desire to fight on the ground and I certainly don't want to fight in a ring. Chances are that I will never need to use my skills in a real situation and even if I did I doubt it would involve staying on the ground. From my perspective there is no hole.

Are you teaching your students a similar "perspective"?

 

[K-man]

Are you teaching your students a similar "perspective"?

Certainly. You guys seem to be hung up on getting down on the ground. Why doesn't Krav incorporate more BJJ? Why doesn't Systema teach more on the ground? What about combatives or Silat? The answer is, none of them are interested in sport. None of them are interested in fighting on the ground. I can't speak for those styles I do not train but certainly I don't believe there is a hole in any of my training.

 

[Steve]

Certainly. You guys seem to be hung up on getting down on the ground. Why doesn't Krav incorporate more BJJ? Why doesn't Systema teach more on the ground? What about combatives or Silat? The answer is, none of them are interested in sport. None of them are interested in fighting on the ground. I can't speak for those styles I do not train but certainly I don't believe there is a hole in any of my training.

I'm not hung up on fighting at any range, but I acknowledge that a fight can happen at any range. I'm not interested in striking. AND that is a hole in my training.

I can freely acknowledge the holes in my training. Why can't you?

And this is also beside the point of defining tma. For example, Bjj has holes and is not a tma. Wing chun has holes and is a tma.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chris Parker]

Here's the thing, Chris. No matter how boldly you declare an opinion, you cannot make it fact. An opinion it remains.

You seem not to understand that your opinions are just that, and resort to condescension when anyone shares a dissenting opinion. It makes slogging through your posts difficult, which seems, IMO, to be on purpose. You like to camouflage your opinions as facts, but opinions they remain.

The fact is that everyone who self identifies as training in a tma had a valid opinion on the matter. So, whether you like it or not, acknowledge it or bit, their opinions are as legitimate as your own.

Being an arrogant prig doesn't make you any more or less correct than other peoples considered opinions in the matter.

For what it's worth, all of the above is my opinion only.

Leaving off the passive-aggressive tone there, Steve, no, I'm not dealing with opinion. In fact, I almost never do. I deal in what is, pure and simple… and this is a case in point. I comment that, when looking at what makes something a TMA, you need to look at actual TMA's, and actual TMA practitioners, rather than just people who (perhaps falsely) feel they are practicing a TMA, backed up with case-studies and evidence of how self-identification as something doesn't mean that that's actually what they are, and you come back by telling me that's just my opinion?

No, Steve. It's quite deliberately taking the idea of "opinion" out of it.

I personally don't believe you can put TMAs in one box.

It's a method of categorisation, so yeah, you can… of course, it's a very big box, with a very wide set of parameters… the issue happens when people start trying to think that all TMA's are the same… it's like saying that all Asian food is the same… which is simply not realistic either… but, by the same token, you can agree that Chinese, Indian, Japanese are all "Asian food"… but French, Italian, German, English food isn't.

All I was saying was that whatever criteria you chose to define TMA there will be something that few people would call TMA that would fit the same criteria.

And, again, I personally don't care what people think… I care about what is.

That's what I am saying. It all depends.

Okay.

In a nutshell, if the style is much the same now as it was when it was originally developed, then it is regarded as 'traditional'. Hence, Isshin Ryu applied to be accepted as a traditional Okinawan style and was accepted about two or three years ago making it the fourth style regarded as 'traditional' in Okinawa.
:asian:

Interesting. It certainly looks like they're looking at a range of criteria that goes a fair bit beyond "traditional martial art", of course…

So maybe keeping aspects of an art that are just for preservation of a linage? This does not mean that things are not added or adjusted for current times. Just has some traditional things maintained.

Honestly, I don't think that's really a good approach… keeping bits and pieces, and changing others, leads to confusion and a mess of a system… it becomes a mongrel, neither one thing nor another…

Like a fighting style or group of techniques used at a point in time when swords were commonly on your hip may not translate to today. But doesn't mean it has to be dropped and can keep it in the style until maybe once again it's needed after all the power goes off and ammo is no more. But is taught more ceremonial?

Ceremonial? Not at all. For the vague "zombie apocalypse"? Even less likely. To be clear, at least as far as Koryu is concerned, arts are kept alive because they still offer relevance to the modern practitioners… it just isn't necessarily in combative applications in their original context… but that's going to lead us somewhere that'll require a lot of typing…

In a basic leadership course, I train new supervisors in critical thinking and decision making. Essentially, we talk about giving some thought to the various factors that influence a decision: risk to the company, policies, safety, legality or precedent. There are dozens of factors that could influence a decision, but if you give some thought in advance to what factors are important to you, it can help you make a sound, wise decision in a moment of crisis. The point isn't that one thing is more or less important than another. The point really is that we all have priorities, but that we seldom think about them with intention. So, in a moment of crisis, we often struggle to reconcile conflicting priorities.

In the same way, we all have priorities and needs from our MA training. We all have a list of things we gain from training: health/fitness, self defense skills, confidence, 6 pack abs (well, some people do, I hear), tradition, esprit de corps. Who knows what else? We all have a list, and our lists are likely different. Which brings me back to what I said earlier. My opinion remains that if your primary goal (successful or not) is to pass on your "system" in the same manner as you learned it from your instructor, you are likely in a "TMA."

So… pretty much exactly what I said in my first post here, discussing priorities being the major distinction between TMA and non-TMA systems? Gotta ask, then… why the arguments?

And so, training like their instructor is more important than addressing obvious holes in their technique.

"Obvious holes"?!?!

Steve, no. Just… no.

If the sole purpose of the sport is to be a sport, then no it can't be a martial art.

Who said anything about a sole purpose? And are you really suggesting that wrestling couldn't be used for self defence, or similar? Can you see how you're over-simplifying to the point of inaccuracy here?

In a worst case scenario, you can choose not to fight in a ring. You may not be able to choose not to fight on the ground. That's a hole in the training. But you're right, if you're training for fun, there's nothing wrong with doing what you want. But that doesn't mean the hole is gone. It just means that you're choosing to ignore it, or in denial that it exists.

Actually, no, Steve, it means that perhaps a different tactical understanding and contextual understanding is in play. Not that there are "holes"…

Is training "fundamentally the same" as your instructor and his/her instructors the most (or perhaps one of the most) important priorities of your style? If yes, you're probably training in a style that self identifies as "Traditional." My opinion remains that this is the simplest and most accurate definition of a traditional martial art. Applying this test, below are how I'd categorize some styles.

Okay...

Non-traditional: BJJ, Boxing, MMA, TKD (depending on the school, can be either), Krav Maga, Arnis

Really? BJJ is trained differently now? How so? Are there new methods, sweeps, counters etc? Sure. It's a sporting art, and sporting arts are constantly an arms race… but it was the same back in the day… you might even say that BJJ has a tradition of evolving technique… but the actual training methodology, I'd suggest, is largely the same as it was when Helio started teaching… TKD can be a sporting oriented school, but you'll still see the traditional trappings there, so I'd argue that all TKD schools are (at heart) TMA… Arnis is still taught the same way it was years ago…

Traditional: TKD (depending on the school) most Karate styles (maybe all), Judo, Muay Thai, every style of CMA I can think of, Aikido]/QUOTE]

So… muay Thai is traditional? Why is it traditional, but a sporting TKD dojang isn't?

BJJ, for example, can be considered a traditional MA in some ways, but I don't think it meets the most important test, which is to answer the question above. BJJ continues to evolve and students are encouraged to explore new techniques and tactics. The upside down guard video is a good example of this, even if it's not the wisest tactic for self defense. This doesn't address holes in training, which may exist. It doesn't address the origin of the style. It only answers the question, "Is this style traditional?" And BJJ is not.

Yes, it is.

Are you teaching your students a similar "perspective"?

You might want to get some kind of actual understanding of K-man's perspective before you decide that it's not correct… remember, fighting ain't fighting… MMA ain't everything… BJJ has it's problems and limitations… and a cage proves nothing other than a one-off occurrence in a cage.

 

[Chris Parker]

I'm not hung up on fighting at any range, but I acknowledge that a fight can happen at any range. I'm not interested in striking. AND that is a hole in my training.

I can freely acknowledge the holes in my training. Why can't you?

And this is also beside the point of defining tma. For example, Bjj has holes and is not a tma. Wing chun has holes and is a tma.

There is a big difference between "having holes" and having a different contextual and tactical application. Just because it's outside of your (not just you, Steve… this is aimed at a few others here as well) exposure and experience doesn't make it any less valid.

In other words, they only have "holes" if you don't understand the context.

 

[K-man]

I'm not hung up on fighting at any range, but I acknowledge that a fight can happen at any range. I'm not interested in striking. AND that is a hole in my training.

I can freely acknowledge the holes in my training. Why can't you?

And this is also beside the point of defining tma. For example, Bjj has holes and is not a tma. Wing chun has holes and is a tma.

Let's say hypothetically that I was a top class chef specialising in French style cuisine. Let's say, hypothetically, that I don't serve asian style food in my restaurant. Some might say that shows there is a hole in my menu. Who gives a toss? If people want Asian food they go to an asian restaurant.

From my perspective, there are no holes in my training. If I wanted to be involved in MMA I would train MMA. I have trained in a number of styles of MA and reckon I have most bases covered. So perhaps now we could get back to the OP and how to define TMA.
:asian:

 

[Steve]

Let's say hypothetically that I was a top class chef specialising in French style cuisine. Let's say, hypothetically, that I don't serve asian style food in my restaurant. Some might say that shows there is a hole in my menu. Who gives a toss? If people want Asian food they go to an asian restaurant.

From my perspective, there are no holes in my training. If I wanted to be involved in MMA I would train MMA. I have trained in a number of styles of MA and reckon I have most bases covered. So perhaps now we could get back to the OP and how to define TMA.
:asian:

The metaphor breaks down. There are at least two people involved in an altercation. You can choose not to cook Asian food. No one else is involved. You can't decide alone that a fight stays standing. Someone else has influence.

Also, the stakes are higher in self defense than in cooking.

I am talking about defining tma. You're yhe one who's talking about cooking. So unless you're using the royal 'we' consider speaking for yourself. You may disagree but that doesn't mean my post is off topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Steve]

Chris,first i appreciate the passive aggressive comment, but i think it was more just aggressive. I'm not good at subtle.

Second, I do now believe that you cannot distinguish between your opinions and facts.

Finally, in a thread about how to define a tma, that you believe to be the one guy who knows for fact is funny. The entire section about having to ask the right people is awesome, if a bit surreal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chris Parker]

The metaphor breaks down. There are at least two people involved in an altercation. You can choose not to cook Asian food. No one else is involved. You can't decide alone that a fight stays standing. Someone else has influence.

Also, the stakes are higher in self defense than in cooking.

I am talking about defining tma. You're yhe one who's talking about cooking. So unless you're using the royal 'we' consider speaking for yourself. You may disagree but that doesn't mean my post is off topic.

No, it doesn't. The reason you're feeling it does is that you're wanting to apply a single context to all martial arts… what K-man and I are saying is that the context of MMA, BJJ, Judo, TKD, whatever is simply not necessarily the same as other systems… and the idea of "holes" is deeply contextually and tactically loaded.

We're not engaging in your context. As a result, we don't have to do what you guys do… or have the same ideas.

Chris,first i appreciate the passive aggressive comment, but i think it was more just aggressive. I'm not good at subtle.

Second, I do now believe that you cannot distinguish between your opinions and facts.

Finally, in a thread about how to define a tma, that you believe to be the one guy who knows for fact is funny. The entire section about having to ask the right people is awesome, if a bit surreal.

Then you missed entirely what I was saying.

To go over it once more, in an effort to define what "TMA" are, I posit that you should only really be looking at actual TMA's… and actual TMA practitioners. Not people who (possibly falsely) think that's what they do. That's not an opinion, it's an observation. And, bluntly, it's so common sense that I find it amazing that you're arguing against it… surely, in order to define something, you need to actually look at that thing, yeah?

Really, all I said there was that "self identification" is completely irrelevant. Again, not an opinion, a simple observation and basic common sense. If someone self identifies as a TMA practitioner, and they actually are one, then the relevant fact is that they're genuinely a TMA practitioner… if they self identify as one, but aren't actually practicing a TMA, then the relevant factor is that what they're doing isn't TMA… not what they think it is… and, if someone doesn't think they're a TMA practitioner, but they actually are, again, they're self identification means nothing… what matters is what they actually do. I really find it incredible that you can argue against that… especially after I demonstrated it with examples earlier (that you didn't have any argument against, simply resorting to saying "well, that's your opinion"&#8230.

 

[Cirdan]

TMA is short for three words that people love to argue over, because obviously there is only one very specific meaning when put together, revealed to the chosen few of the true way of course, and everybody else are wrong all the time.

And red candy IS so much better than the icky blue ones too!!

 

[Hanzou]

You might want to get some kind of actual understanding of K-man's perspective before you decide that it's not correct… remember, fighting ain't fighting… MMA ain't everything… BJJ has it's problems and limitations… and a cage proves nothing other than a one-off occurrence in a cage.

Why do you assume that learning to fight on the ground is only limited/applicable to MMA? There's plenty of evidence showing people getting pulled to the ground in a fight (usually by a larger adversary) and getting pummeled. When that happens, the damage to the person in the inferior position is magnified, and can lead to serious injury or even death. Not many people can die from a punch or kick while they're standing. Plenty of people can die from a punch to their head while someone is sitting on top of them, or smacking their head into the concrete.

Then there's the case of females in compromising positions or rape situations. Knowing how to choke, or snap someone's limb from your back is highly useful in that situation as well. This is made even more important because a female is often put into that position by a larger person.

You can't just say "I'll never get put into that position" because its very possible that you (or your students) could be put into that position. Gravity isn't going away anytime soon.

I don't believe anyone said that Bjj is the perfect system, but it has a pretty damn good track record because it addresses a pretty important, yet often neglected combat range. Kman was the one who said he has no holes in his training, not any Bjj exponent on this forum.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

To go over it once more, in an effort to define what "TMA" are, I posit that you should only really be looking at actual TMA's… and actual TMA practitioners. Not people who (possibly falsely) think that's what they do. That's not an opinion, it's an observation. And, bluntly, it's so common sense that I find it amazing that you're arguing against it… surely, in order to define something, you need to actually look at that thing, yeah?

Really, all I said there was that "self identification" is completely irrelevant. Again, not an opinion, a simple observation and basic common sense. If someone self identifies as a TMA practitioner, and they actually are one, then the relevant fact is that they're genuinely a TMA practitioner… if they self identify as one, but aren't actually practicing a TMA, then the relevant factor is that what they're doing isn't TMA… not what they think it is… and, if someone doesn't think they're a TMA practitioner, but they actually are, again, they're self identification means nothing… what matters is what they actually do. I really find it incredible that you can argue against that… especially after I demonstrated it with examples earlier (that you didn't have any argument against, simply resorting to saying "well, that's your opinion"&#8230.

Chris, you're a smart guy so I find it hard to believe you can't see the circularity in arguing "to find a definition of x we should only look at actual examples of x." The problem is that unless you have a definition of x in the first place then you can't specify which examples are actually x and which are not.

There is no definition of "TMA" in the dictionary. There is no universally accepted definition in the martial arts community as a whole. There is no universally accepted definition among those who self-identify as traditional martial artists. There is no universal agreement among martial artists or self-identified traditional martial artists as to which arts fall into that category. Personally, I don't think it's a tremendously useful phrase.

If you want to use the term meaningfully, then you can define what you mean by it and you can argue for why your definition makes a more useful categorization than the other definitions that people use. Claiming that your definition is just a matter of factual observation because all the arts that meet your criteria happen to meet your criteria is circular nonsense.

 

[Chris Parker]

Why do you assume that learning to fight on the ground is only limited/applicable to MMA? There's plenty of evidence showing people getting pulled to the ground in a fight (usually by a larger adversary) and getting pummeled. When that happens, the damage to the person in the inferior position is magnified, and can lead to serious injury or even death. Not many people can die from a punch or kick while they're standing. Plenty of people can die from a punch to their head while someone is sitting on top of them, or smacking their head into the concrete.

Then there's the case of females in compromising positions or rape situations. Knowing how to choke, or snap someone's limb from your back is highly useful in that situation as well. This is made even more important because a female is often put into that position by a larger person.

You can't just say "I'll never get put into that position" because its very possible that you (or your students) could be put into that position. Gravity isn't going away anytime soon.

I don't believe anyone said that Bjj is the perfect system, but it has a pretty damn good track record because it addresses a pretty important, yet often neglected combat range. Kman was the one who said he has no holes in his training, not any Bjj exponent on this forum.

Oh, Horatio… you're really not getting what I'm saying.

I'm not assuming anything of the kind.

You're focused on techniques. Pointless. You miss the overall concept of context and tactics. Important. You're missing where I have (citing a post of yours) also agreed that BJJ is a good system for women to learn… although I have different reasons for such a statement (and, ideally, I'd actually feel that, as a self defence curriculum, my modern material trumps BJJ quite easily… and, for the record, that's me with experience in BJJ saying that&#8230, so you're missing my actual beliefs and feelings in this arena.

Oh, and for the record, no-one accused BJJ of not having holes… that accusation was launched at others (K-man specifically)… and I was pointing out that such an accusation is made without understanding the actual context and tactical mentality of K-man's teachings. Don't get your head out of whack with a perceived attack, there isn't one. We're pointing out that your understanding is really far from the whole story.

Kay?

 

[Chris Parker]

Chris, you're a smart guy so I find it hard to believe you can't see the circularity in arguing "to find a definition of x we should only look at actual examples of x." The problem is that unless you have a definition of x in the first place then you can't specify which examples are actually x and which are not.

There is no definition of "TMA" in the dictionary. There is no universally accepted definition in the martial arts community as a whole. There is no universally accepted definition among those who self-identify as traditional martial artists. There is no universal agreement among martial artists or self-identified traditional martial artists as to which arts fall into that category. Personally, I don't think it's a tremendously useful phrase.

If you want to use the term meaningfully, then you can define what you mean by it and you can argue for why your definition makes a more useful categorization than the other definitions that people use. Claiming that your definition is just a matter of factual observation because all the arts that meet your criteria happen to meet your criteria is circular nonsense.

Hey, Tony,

I don't really think it's that circular, honestly. If we were only looking at single systems in isolation, then yeah, I'd be with you… however we have many, many, many "Traditional Martial Arts" that we can compare and cross-reference. But my point is that accepting that someone says what they do is "TMA", when it plainly isn't, doesn't do a thing when it comes to defining what TMA actually are.

Take a look at the fake "ninjitsu" systems out there… they're not in any way genuine, they're not in any way "traditional", they're not in any way Japanese in most cases… should we class them as actually "ninjutsu" as part of an effort to define the art, just because some deluded people think that's what they're doing?

How about if someone trained in a bit of Judo, did some Arnis, added some Capoeira, and called it BJJ? Do we accept that that (hypothetical) "art" actually is BJJ? Or do we compare and contrast it with known BJJ to properly define and categorise it?

 

[Hanzou]

Oh, Horatio… you're really not getting what I'm saying.

I'm not assuming anything of the kind.

You're focused on techniques. Pointless. You miss the overall concept of context and tactics. Important. You're missing where I have (citing a post of yours) also agreed that BJJ is a good system for women to learn… although I have different reasons for such a statement (and, ideally, I'd actually feel that, as a self defence curriculum, my modern material trumps BJJ quite easily… and, for the record, that's me with experience in BJJ saying that&#8230, so you're missing my actual beliefs and feelings in this arena.

You mentioned MMA twice in the post I quoted, implying that Bjj or ground fighting's importance is mostly cage/sport-based. I was merely pointing out how that belief is nonsense, because ground fighting has very real and important applications within self defense.

Oh, and for the record, no-one accused BJJ of not having holes… that accusation was launched at others (K-man specifically)… and I was pointing out that such an accusation is made without understanding the actual context and tactical mentality of K-man's teachings. Don't get your head out of whack with a perceived attack, there isn't one. We're pointing out that your understanding is really far from the whole story.

Kay?

No one accused Kman of anything. Kman himself said that he had no holes in his training. I think that was quite an interesting statement, and wanted to know if he passed that belief onto his students. You're the one who decided to hop in and defend his incredulous statement for whatever reason.

 

[Chris Parker]

You mentioned MMA twice in the post I quoted, inferring that Bjj or ground fighting's importance is mostly cage/sport-based. I was merely pointing out how that belief is nonsense, because ground fighting has very real and important applications within self defines.

It has the potential to have some application… that's a very different thing to suggesting that not having a highly developed ground fighting "game" is a "hole" in a training construct you don't understand.

No one accused Kman of anything. Kman himself said that he had no holes in his training. I think that was quite an interesting statement, and wanted to know if he passed that belief onto his students. You're the one who decided to hop in and defend his incredulous statement for whatever reason.

Actually, no… K-man mentioned that some might make the argument that the lack of a "developed ground game" could be considered a "hole", but that that was not considered accurate in the systems he teaches (nor mine, for the record)… Steve started saying that the lack was a "obvious hole"… it isn't. That's the point. It's only an "obvious hole" if it's meant to be addressed, or considered valuable enough to dedicate the time to it. In K-man's training, and in mine, it just doesn't have the benefit to justify the trade-off in training other, more practical, and beneficial methods.

Oh, and your comments like "his incredulous statement" don't help you… it really just shows that you're unable to see past your own nose, and are unwilling to learn anything beyond what you think is "real".

You have picked up on the new name, yeah? Got the reference yet?

 

[Rich Parsons]

With all the threads about mma vs. tma, Why are tma's having difficulty in the ring, etc. I thought we could all sit down and hash out what exactly is a Traditional Martial Art?

This all depends upon what the meaning of the word "IS" is. - President Clinton



Also :
Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.
Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

Men In Black "Imagine" - YouTube


Seriously:

I train and teach two systems that were created in the early second half of the 20th century. They are considered Modern in many aspects compared to other older systems and arts. They are also considered Traditional as people like me have continued the tradition of teaching in the same methods as I was taught in.

I can count over 20 MMA schools that have opened and closed in my area in the last 15 years and a few more before that as well. They close because they lose their students as usually the colored belt instructor or group leader or study group or what ever is not worried about safety and the training of others and only worried about their own training. As most will not go to a lower rank student to learn they usually are the most skilled in the club and can protect themselves. Others not so lucky as the number of people I have seen come through my small school that were there because someone on purpose broke their arm after then had already tapped out.

There is a point that injuries happen. And if one pushed themselves and over works something then it is understandable. If one has an accident this is understandable as well. Yet to understand that someone actually just wants to go an break someone else's arm even after they tap just for their own ego and or rep is not good.

So, I have a saying Perception is Reality. One could be the nicest person in the world, yet if you explode and yell at someone or hurt someone just once others who say and those they talk to will worry about when it will happen again.

If the predator see you are not paying attention on the street the perception is that you are a victim and you become a target.

So my perception of MMA is that of Sport the serious professional and all those who want to prove something to themselves and hurt others along the way.

So, if you are not part of that definition to me then you are part of a TMA.



NOTE: I am not saying all MMA is bad. I am not challenging people about what they train or study. I have rolled some on the ground. I have also had to protect myself when people would not release after I had tapped out. From people wanting to "Choke me out" (* And I could still talk and explain that they were going to break my neck, as they were trying to teach me move that the instructor did not ask us to work on as they wanted to dominate me and have me be afraid of them from having passed out, too also someone smaller using excessive strength on an armbar and trying to pop their hips after I tapped. In both cases I used techniques that were not allowed in the Sport of MMA and demonstrated the error of their way.

Also note: I have been beat up and hurt, and had my ribs separated from kicks on the ground in real confrontations, so I know I am not a bad***, I am just someone trying to survive.