Why the hate between TMA and MMA?

[Paul_D]

The best evidence would be objective evidence. However, since exponents of such styles refuse to compete in open formats, that objective evidence will never appear.

This is part of the problem. The only "objective" evidence in your eyes is for something to be proven with the field of consensual/sport/fighting. But Karate kata isn't designed to function within the realms of consensual fighting, it is designed for self defence from non consensual criminal violence.

“The techniques of the kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter in an arena or on a battlefield. They were, however, most effective against someone who had no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behaviour.”

Consensual fighting and non consensual criminal violence are two different things. So you cannot measure the effectiveness of one by testing it within the realm of the another field that it was not designed to function in, anymore than you can test the effectiveness of a screwdriver by trying to mow the lawn with it.

You don't understand the problem (why consensual fighting is different to self defence) you don't understand how to interpret the movements within karate kata and you don't understand how to apply the techniques of karate kata for SD. There is no part of this discussion you understand. Further, the only evidence you will accept is for this to be proven in a field in which a) it is not designed to function and b) has been decided by you as the only true test, despite not understanding any part of the subject.

It is perfectly understandable then that you don't, and never will 'get it'. And this is not a problem. You don't understand any part of the problem or the solution, and this also isn't a problem , as has been explain your inability to undestand something does not diminish it effectiveness.

But this does not mean that you should be arguing with the people that do understand the problem and do understand one solution, that their solution will not work because it is not designed to function within a completely arbitrary measure that someone, who does not understand any part of this, had decided is the only true way to prove effectiveness.

You know about BJJ, I know little, hence I don't try to tell you what does and does not work within BJJ. You know what works, you done it, and the inability of other people to understand how it works has no bearing on its effectiveness. What I don't get is why you continue to argue with those of us who do understand the difference between consensual fighting and SD, and do know how to interpret and apply the the techniques of karate kata, and have done so in live situations, that our solution to the problem does not work. It work, we know it works, we do not need to prove to you it works, nor do we require you to understand how it works, nor do we need to prove its effectiveness in a completely different field that it is not designed to function in. What we do require is that you stop arguing about a subject that understand absolutely no part of, with the people who do.

I took my son to the hospital easter weekend as his was in severe abdominal pain. The Doctor told me they were going to rush him to theatre to perform an apomdectomy. I did not ask the surgeon to prove his diagnosis by beating me at monopoly because I had arbitrarily decided that is the only true test of his ability to understand both the problem and the solution. I know nothing of medicine, he does so I listen to him because he knows what he is talking about and I don't. Now my son is recovering well and we are sat here waiting for Dr Who to start, instead of organising his funeral which is what we would have been doing if I tried to have an arguement with the Dr and tell him he was wrong because he couldn't beat me at monopoly. This is, as idiotic as it sounds, is exactly what you are doing.

You do not understand what SD is, you do not understand how to interpret the movements of karate kata, you do not understand how to apply them to SD, and you do not understand the difference between consensual fighting and SD, so you should probably stop arguing with those of us who do, accept that you don't understand (and never will) move on, and stick to talking about the subject matter you do understand?

 

[Mou Meng Gung Fu]

Jujutsu has waza and kata.

That's interesting you say that. I still practice Jujutsu today, but never in my life did I ever learn a Jujutsu kata. At least not the kind of "kata" everyone is refering to in this thread. So are you actually joking or being serious? Hard to tell from my perspective. I have been practicing Jujutsu for many years now, but I never once learned a Jujutsu kata. I know various schools and styles of Jujutsu exist with different variations throughout the world, but in my style, there is no kata. Actually to be really technical there is a Japanese word "kata" which means "shoulder" in my style, as in kata-gurume or shoulder throw. But the actual form/kata is missing from my style. What does a Jujutsu kata look like?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's interesting you say that. I still practice Jujutsu today, but never in my life did I ever learn a Jujutsu kata. At least not the kind of "kata" everyone is refering to in this thread. So are you actually joking or being serious? Hard to tell from my perspective. I have been practicing Jujutsu for many years now, but I never once learned a Jujutsu kata. I know various schools and styles of Jujutsu exist with different variations throughout the world, but in my style, there is no kata. Actually to be really technical there is a Japanese word "kata" which means "shoulder" in my style, as in katame-waza or shoulder techniques. But the actual form/kata is missing from my style. What does a Jujutsu kata look like?

There are many different kinds of Jujutsu. Daito-ryu has very stylized short forms for their techniques, for instance, which most would consider short kata. These forms consist of a specific attack sequence (starting often from a couple of steps away) and a specific response technique. They are 2-man kata, and we have remnants of them (in a less stylized version) in NGA, which is largely derived from Daito-ryu.

 

[oaktree]

That's interesting you say that. I still practice Jujutsu today, but never in my life did I ever learn a Jujutsu kata. At least not the kind of "kata" everyone is refering to in this thread. So are you actually joking or being serious? Hard to tell from my perspective. I have been practicing Jujutsu for many years now, but I never once learned a Jujutsu kata. I know various schools and styles of Jujutsu exist with different variations throughout the world, but in my style, there is no kata. Actually to be really technical there is a Japanese word "kata" which means "shoulder" in my style, as in kata-gurume or shoulder throw. But the actual form/kata is missing from my style. What does a Jujutsu kata look like?

When I practice Daito Ryu my teacher would make me practice by myself going through the motion as if i was actually practicing with someone. I can not speak about all jujutsu schools but definitely there are waza and depending on how you define kata.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

@Paul_D

Glad your son is on the mend!

 

[oaktree]

There are many different kinds of Jujutsu. Daito-ryu has very stylized short forms for their techniques, for instance, which most would consider short kata. These forms consist of a specific attack sequence (starting often from a couple of steps away) and a specific response technique. They are 2-man kata, and we have remnants of them (in a less stylized version) in NGA, which is largely derived from Daito-ryu.

Yes when we do are sets it is highly ritualistic ending with the ceremonial cutting off of the head in most cases.

 

[Mou Meng Gung Fu]

There are many different kinds of Jujutsu. Daito-ryu has very stylized short forms for their techniques, for instance, which most would consider short kata. These forms consist of a specific attack sequence (starting often from a couple of steps away) and a specific response technique. They are 2-man kata, and we have remnants of them (in a less stylized version) in NGA, which is largely derived from Daito-ryu.

That's interesting. I refer to those as 2-man drills. I view kata as being a solo form training exercise like Chinese taolu. When involving pre-set movements in action with a training partner, I think of sets or drills. But that's all good. I also would like to make a correction in what I said earlier, as my Japanese isn't that good. I said katame-waza by mistake. What I actually meant was kata-gatame or kata-gurume, in which the word "kata" means shoulder. I edited my post to fix the mistake, but you quoted me before I had a chance (lol). It's all good.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Yes, archaic punches, kicks from archaic stances, and uppercuts with little practical value. Is it any wonder that the majority of karate and kung fu practitioners resort to boxing/muay thai for hand techniques, footwork, and stances when they transition to MMA or other combat sports?

This is the general problem that "training does not match with fighting". The following 2 clips shows

1. How to "develop" a technique through partner training.

2. How to "polish" a technique by using solo form when training partner is not available.

The solo form is created after the technique has been developed. It serves as a function of "polishing" only. IMO, if you take the approach as:

application -> form

you won't have the issue that you have just mentioned.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's interesting. I refer to those as 2-man drills. I view kata as being a solo form training exercise like Chinese taolu. When involving pre-set movements in action with a training partner, I think of sets or drills. But that's all good. I also would like to make a correction in what I said earlier, as my Japanese isn't that good. I said katame-waza by mistake. What I actually meant was kata-gatame or kata-gurume, in which the word "kata" means shoulder. I edited my post to fix the mistake, but you quoted me before I had a chance (lol). It's all good.

That's a difference in definition. I tend to lump anything that must be done precisely and which has a stylistic element (no resistance, etc.) and which is repeated that way by every student into the "form" category, because it serves much of the same purpose as long forms.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is the general problem that "training does not match with fighting". The following 2 clips shows

1. How to train a technique.

2. How to polish technique when training partner is not available.

The solo form is created after the technique has been developed. It serves as a function of "polishing" only. IMO, if you take the approach as:

application -> form

you won't have the issue that you have just mentioned.

I agree, in general. Some forms, however, aren't meant to teach a specific application. They are meant to force students to work on specific principles, while practicing movement related to application. Some of our short forms are like that. I refer to them as "esoteric forms", because there's a gap between their movements and application. But the principles they force are important, and are the point of the form.

 

[Steel Accord]

I don't hate modern MMA, especially now. There was a time, when I first started really training, that I did look down on them though. For me, the martial arts were more than codified systems of fighting, they were philosophies and instruments of spirituality. Modern MMA, with its focus on pure practicality and gutting of all cultural components that Jiu-Jitsu, Greco-Roman wrestling, etc. came from just seemed to be quite literally soulless.

Again though, that's what my thinking WAS. Nowadays, while I'm not a huge fan of the televised sport of it and more just out of disinterest, I don't condemn or look down on MMA. Not everyone is me and not everyone gets into martial arts for the reasons that I do.

 

[Hanzou]

Except that's not objective evidence of whether it works against an unprepared attacker, anyway. It's a useful method of validation, but not being able to do something against a well-trained and prepared opponent does not necessarily mean it can't be used against an aggressive attacker who isn't expecting that response. That can be easily seen in how often a single powerful jab ends an altercation in the street, and how seldom the first dozen or so jabs have much effect in a competition. Nobody I know of would argue that jabs aren't effective in a short defensive fight, even though they rarely show much immediate ability to do damage in a contest.

It's the most objective evidence we have in a civilized society outside of having people randomly attack people on the street without warning.

Further, if you're capable of performing techniques on a well trained, aggressive opponent, you're probably likely to be able to perform that technique on a less trained aggressive opponent. For example, a set up for a triangle choke might not work on Renzo Gracie, but if I can get Renzo in a triangle, chances are pretty good I can get a triangle on someone who has never seen it before, or can recognize its set ups.

Your example of a jab ending a street altercation is a good example of exactly what I'm talking about. If you're used to taking jabs and punches to the face in competition or training, when someone punches you in the face "on the street" you have a higher chance of being unfazed by it. The same thing applies to just about every aspect of unarmed fighting.

 

[Hanzou]

This is a chicken and egg issue. If you develop your skill first. You then create your solo form to "record" your skill, that will be a different story.

Here is an example. His technique has been developed in the past 50 years (he is a 8th degree black belt in Shuai Chiao, the chairman of ACSCA). His form/Kata was created just 2 years ago.

Um, no it isn't. It's almost impossible to develop skill without practical experience. In other words, you learn to grapple by grappling with someone. You learn how to punch by punching someone. If you're doing nothing but punching or grappling with air, you're not developing the practical experience necessary to perform those tasks.

This is compounded within bunkai practice, because you have people performing complex series of techniques in response to nonsensical attacks. No one is going to punch you like that. There's a very slim chance you're going to catch someone's wrist when they punch. There's an even slimmer chance that you'll retain control of the wrist long enough to perform standing grappling.

None of that really applies to the vid you posted btw. If you look at the Tekki Shodan vid I posted and your vid, you should notice some pretty big differences.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Further, if you're capable of performing techniques on a well trained, aggressive opponent, you're probably likely to be able to perform that technique on a less trained aggressive opponent.

IMO, you have to develop your skill step by step. I have always believed that if you can beat up all

- elementary school kids,
- junior high school boys,
- senior high school young adults,

you have developed some dependable skill. To start from weak and move up toward strong is the key. If you get killed by Mike Tyson in your 1st boxing training, it won't do you any good.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

There's a very slim chance you're going to catch someone's wrist when they punch.

This is why I started the thread "You always attack first". I don't like to wait for my opponent to throw punches unless I just train my "defense" skill.

None of that really applies to the vid you posted btw. If you look at the Tekki Shodan vid I posted and your vid, you should notice some pretty big differences.

Your concern is well considered by some TMA system already.

- Too many forms.
- Forms do not map to fighting.

 

[Paul_D]

@Paul_D

Glad your son is on the mend!

Thank you

And we enjoyed Dr Who

 

[Hanzou]

That's your own bias speaking. And it's not factual. And it's silly. You can't take one type of training and automatically insert it into an artificial venue. That's like putting a Judo player against a TKD player...who's going to win? Well, it depends on the rules. If the Judo player isn't allowed to grapple then I'd put my money on the TKD player. How about a kick boxer vs. a BJJ player? Well, if the kick boxer isn't allowed to kick and they both have to start on the ground I'd put my money on the BJJ player. Okay, how about we take the MMA guy who has to abide by the rules of the octagon against a street fighter that doesn't have to obey the rules...and he's armed with a knife...and two of his buddies are going to jump in when the MMA guy turns his back. Who are you going to put your money on? How about an MMA guy, same as above against a Karate guy but the Karate guy gets to use techniques the maim, blind, break or kill because he's not bound by the rule set? Not fair to the MMA you might say? Well, it wouldn't be fair to the Karate guy to limit what he's learned to a narrow range and rule set that is artificial. Plus, the Karate guy doesn't train to win, he trains to not lose/not have to fight.

Except we've had exhibitions where two martial artists from different styles have fought each other, and we know their results. Kickboxers were allowed to kick, and grapplers were allowed to grapple. It's interesting how these discussions always bring up silly variations to what the actual rules in NHB/MMA competitions are. There would never be a competitive format with the rules you've described above.

One interesting thing about your karate example; It's quite difficult to maim, kill, break, or blind if you can't establish the dominant position. The person in the dominant position is far more capable of doing those things you described.

Let me ask you a question, if we were to meet in person...would you like to get into the ring with me? You rely on your training and I rely on mine. Simple question.

If I were 100% I would love to. I think it would be very a good time.

 

[Hanzou]

IMO, you have to develop your skill step by step. I have always believed that if you can beat up all

- elementary school kids,
- junior high school boys,
- senior high school young adults,

you have developed some dependable skill. To start from weak and move up toward strong is the key. If you get killed by Mike Tyson in your 1st boxing training, it won't do you any good.

Well keep in mind, the argument here is that one set of martial artists are adept at taking down skilled and unskilled opponents. Another set is skilled at taking down only unskilled opponents. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's the most objective evidence we have in a civilized society outside of having people randomly attack people on the street without warning.

Further, if you're capable of performing techniques on a well trained, aggressive opponent, you're probably likely to be able to perform that technique on a less trained aggressive opponent. For example, a set up for a triangle choke might not work on Renzo Gracie, but if I can get Renzo in a triangle, chances are pretty good I can get a triangle on someone who has never seen it before, or can recognize its set ups.

Your example of a jab ending a street altercation is a good example of exactly what I'm talking about. If you're used to taking jabs and punches to the face in competition or training, when someone punches you in the face "on the street" you have a higher chance of being unfazed by it. The same thing applies to just about every aspect of unarmed fighting.

I agree with the principle, Hanzou. The issue is that it sets a very high bar - one that is not necessarily related to actual application. I don't need to be able to subdue a highly trained, highly fit, highly disciplined opponent. Someone like that is so vanishingly unlikely to attack me that I consider training for that as important as having flood insurance (I live on a mountain).

So, where do we get some reasonable evidence? We combine what evidence we do have. Some of that is anecdotal - not the best evidence, but useful if supported by other evidence, and especially so if it comes from sources that need the techniques as part of their profession (bouncers, LEO, etc.). Some of the evidence is from videos, like those you've gathered. Some is actually from sport (because that is useful information, of course). We can also use resisting partners in the dojo as part of the evidence.

Here's part of my problem with only using sport evidence, and it's a restatement of something that I said in my previous post. Just because something doesn't work in sport, that doesn't mean it doesn't work in a different scenario/context. People who are angry and unskilled make a range of mistakes you'd not expect from even a garden-variety black belt in a competition. Part of my training is to take advantage of those mistakes. That training is not terribly useful for competition, and a focus on competition can cause that type of training to be suppressed.

I have nothing against competition. If a student of mine wanted to compete, I'd suggest they find a good coach (I'm certainly not qualified for that) and give it a go. They'd need to make some adaptation (some of the stuff I mentioned above), but we have plenty of basic techniques that show up in competition, anyway, so they'd have a base to work from. I'd expect them to keep training the full range if they want to train with me. If someone came to me asking me to prepare them for competition, I'd suggest they find a program designed for that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well keep in mind, the argument here is that one set of martial artists are adept at taking down skilled and unskilled opponents. Another set is skilled at taking down only unskilled opponents. Your mileage may vary.

That's not necessarily the point. I can take down skilled people. But not highly skilled athletes who are more familiar with the rules than I am, and who have trained only for the skills useful in that context. They are training specifically to that context, and danged well should be better at it. If they are serious about competition at any high level (regional competition, etc.), they're probably also training far more than the average non-competitor and are in better shape. Those last two bits are points of personal commitment, and have nothing to do with the art/style.