Yet another TMA vs. MMA debate

[Andrew Green]

My view is that MMA is fighting, and the best answer for fighting. But there is more to self-defence, even the physical aspects of self-defence, then fighing. Sometimes a wrist lock to defuse is enough, although you do risk excalating things if it fails, in which case you probably will want the ability to fight as a back up.

There are also a lot of things that work really well on untrained fighters, but not at all on trained fighters. Someone throwing hay makers with everything they got can be dealt with in ways someone with boxing skills can't.

The two have different goals, and different ways of achieving them. Is there room for both? Absolutely, but time is the enemy there. People can only learn so many things to a good level.

My opinion, if self-defence was my teaching goal (It isn't) would be to give a solid wrestling and boxing base, a few submissions first, as when the **** hits the fan that's the stuff that should come out. Then once that is established bring in other elements to deal with other situations.

 

[Rook]

To me, I see this as a question of best practices, rather than what can be gotten away with. Asking what the most effective ways available to strike, to resist going to the ground, the best way to regain your feet or finish the fight down there - rather than how unrealistic training can be and still be able to pull off sucesses in self-defense seems to me the better way to go. I always see the question as "can this be done better" and "how can I practice this to be most able to do it" rather than "can I train like this and still be able to defend myself?"

That, I think, is one of the fundamental differances emerging between TMA as practiced today and MMA. TMA practitioners often come on boards and ask about the minimums rather than the best practices and limits.

 

[Andrew Green]

Yup, but best action might change depending on your opponent. In MMA that applies as well, if the guy is good at takedowns, you don't try and kick him in the head for example. If you are working against someone that has no training your best action might be different then it would be against someone with training.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Why is this even an issue?

Here is what TMA/MMA teach you as far as self defense goes:

*Unarmed single combat


Here are the things you need to KNOW as far as self defense goes:

*National and local laws
*Witness camouflage( i.e. you shout "Don't hurt me" even as you pound him, you take a ready position but all the witnesses see is you stepping away and making universal sign language for "Stop" and things like that)
*Situational awareness( as per my sig quote for example)
*How adrenaline works in your system
*Unarmed single combat
*Group combat strategies
*Weapons( I don't care if you never want to/are not legally able to pack one but you cannot defend them if you don't know their use. that simple)
*As much about modern firearms as the laws of your country allow( I don't care if you love them or hate them so long as you know how not to shoot yourself with them and are not ignorant of how they function/can be made NOT to function)
*The right lawyer to hire
*How to talk to cops over the phone("I've been forced to defend myself...he was trying to kill me....I had to defend myself to save my life!")
*How to talk to the cops who arrive on scene( "He Tried To Kill Me, I Want My Lawyer". *ZIP*)
*What kind of friends this attacker had and are they likely to come back on you
*Understand the Force Continuum as most LEOs do



There ya go.

what seems to be getting argued about about is only *one thirteenth* of what you must know. Really it ain't that big of a deal provided your intent is right and your training honest.

 

[cfr]

Why is this even an issue?

what you are arguing about is only *one thirteenth* of what you must know. Really it ain't that big of a deal provided your intent is right and your training honest.

Why is what an issue? What isnt a big deal? Who is arguing? Who are you directing this too?

Did you reply to the correct post?

 

[Andrew Green]

I think BJJ and Muay Thai are the preferred ingredients for MMA because you can get useable technique in a relatively short time.

True, but...

How long does it take to teach someone to lift their knee for a strike? Swing an elbow? How many repetitions does it take to make them effective?

How long does it take to teach the guard position? A scoop throw?

This is where you need to seriously refine your argument, as it comes across as very clear that you don't understand these techniques and tactics. They take many years to fully understand, and very few ever master things. There is a reason it takes people 10+ years to earn a BJJ Black belt.

Compare that with trying to teach someone a jump spinning heel kick

And is almost completely irrelevant to fighting...

MMA ring fighters don't want to spend 10 years honing techniques: they just want to get in that ring and kick some booty, neh?

I reallt don't get why some people think this? Pro fighters have years of training, and put in more training hours in a month then most people do in a year. This stuff is not as "simple" as you seem to think it is. I mean, I can teach someone the basic movements of boxing in a hour or two, do you think that even if they are in top physical shape they will even be able to touch a low level pro after that?

I'm sorry, but you really loose your argument when you try to make these claims. It's like me saying all Korean styles are complete nonsense because there are 5-year olds with black belts in them, doing all the techniques of them. Things just aren't that simple.

But you know who is scarier to me than Chuck Liddell, Matt Hughes or Rich Franklin?

Those old-school hard core Korean grandmasters.

Guess we're going to disagree there. No doubt they are tough as nails, but they are not pro-fighters, most never where.

As a black belt, I can see lower ranked belts coming from a mile away when they decide to throw a technique. I actually have to wait sometimes for them to fully commit before countering.

And those grandmasters can see US coming from two miles away.

Think this is any different at all from MMA stylists? I can see new guys coming miles away too, and those top fighters would toss me around like a rag doll.

But a guy like me, nearly 40? Injuries take too long to heal. I've played hardball, and it was fun. But now I want to be able to take care of myself when I'm 60.

Well, like any other style, MMA can be done by everyone. Not everyone is going to get in the ring and fight, same as not all TKD Practitioners are going to compete in full contact at high levels.

 

[Fu_Bag]

Why is this even an issue?

Here is what TMA/MMA teach you as far as self defense goes:

*Unarmed single combat


Here are the things you need to KNOW as far as self defense goes:

*National and local laws
*Witness camouflage( i.e. you shout "Don't hurt me" even as you pound him, you take a ready position but all the witnesses see is you stepping away and making universal sign language for "Stop" and things like that)
*Situational awareness( as per my sig quote for example)
*How adrenaline works in your system
*Unarmed single combat
*Group combat strategies
*Weapons( I don't care if you never want to/are not legally able to pack one but you cannot defend them if you don't know their use. that simple)
*As much about modern firearms as the laws of your country allow( I don't care if you love them or hate them so long as you know how not to shoot yourself with them and are not ignorant of how they function/can be made NOT to function)
*The right lawyer to hire
*How to talk to cops over the phone("I've been forced to defend myself...he was trying to kill me....I had to defend myself to save my life!")
*How to talk to the cops who arrive on scene( "He Tried To Kill Me, I Want My Lawyer". *ZIP*)
*What kind of friends this attacker had and are they likely to come back on you
*Understand the Force Continuum as most LEOs do



There ya go.

what seems to be getting argued about about is only *one thirteenth* of what you must know. Really it ain't that big of a deal provided your intent is right and your training honest.

This is an excellent post and a good example of how the troublemakers in the MMA camp have already doomed many of their kind should they ever actually use any of their "aliveness" training.

1. The MMA troublemakers have continually, and openly, insulted the TMA community for years.

2. The MMA troublemakers have continually stated, and restated, that they reject all of the culture, ettiquite, and history that enabled martial artists to live in civilized society and to perform in a true martial sense in the military. This is exemplified in the constant antagonistic attitude of the troublemakers. Therefore, all a lawyer has to do is to pop online, gather thread, after thread, after thread, of evidence where an MMA troublemaker has started fight, after fight, after fight, after fight, after fight with TMA pracitioners to prove in court that the MMA pracitioner sought out fighting instruction so that they could prey upon civilized society.

3. When some proven MMA, or TMA, troublemaker ends up in court, and is compared to the apparent "average joe" that they "defended" themselves against, do you actually think anyone is going to believe that the known troublemaker wasn't the one who started the fight?

4. All legislators need is one such case to try and make a name for themselves by calling for further legislation to restrict martial arts practice. They've already gone after the weapons and training tools. All it would take is a few such cases, hyped up by the media spin machine, to get regular people to support it. They've already got all of the UFC type evidence to show in a courtroom and they're already using it with very itchy trigger fingers.

Playing "war" games in the ring, where the real threat of death has been completely removed, does nothing to improve your chance of survival against real criminals. So you spend 4 hours per day training? That's cool. During those 4 hours, while you've abandonded your loved ones to fend for themselves, is a criminal, or group of criminals, checking out your life? If so, they're going to know for a fact that you represent a very possible threat to their well-being and to their objective of getting what they want without getting hurt.

They're not going to like that too much. So, what's going to happen is they're just going to kill you, get you out of the way, and have fun with your family before killing them. Sorry, but unarmed techniques aren't going to do anything for you, or for your loved ones, when some criminal blows your face off with a shotgun because "aliveness training" oozes off of you. Don't believe me? Ask some veteran police officers whether or not criminals think that way. Aliveness? OK. Whatever......

I've had some experience with the types of criminals I'm talking about. I was enlightened by the veteran police officers who were helping my family survive as to how to think to survive. This "aliveness" crap that keeps getting spouted isn't it. A person isn't "fully resisting" until they see you as someone who is really, truly trying to kill them and their loved ones. This "fully resisting" "partner" BS is one of the biggest loads of crap I've seen marketed to the MA community.

When any type of martial art training method can be proven to breed overly-aggressive, violent, antagonistic, and barbaric sociopaths, all martial arts will suffer. Something needs to be done from within the MA community at large to shut the troublemakers up before they end up ruining it for everyone. The MMA vs All MA garbage really needs to be put to bed before those from outside of the MA community decide to do it themselves.

 

[Andrew Green]

1. The MMA troublemakers have continually, and openly, insulted the TMA community for years.

This goes both ways

 

[Rook]

This is an excellent post and a good example of how the troublemakers in the MMA camp have already doomed many of their kind should they ever actually use any of their "aliveness" training.

1. The MMA troublemakers have continually, and openly, insulted the TMA community for years.

You have brought it on yourselves. You should consider answering their points in matches rather than sniping from the internet. Incidentally, these comments very much go both ways.

2. The MMA troublemakers have continually stated, and restated, that they reject all of the culture, ettiquite, and history that enabled martial artists to live in civilized society

What civilized society? That of feudal Japan? Is that the ideal we hold ourselves to in modern America (or modern western nations)?

and to perform in a true martial sense in the military.

Huh? MMA is the major base of CQC in many of the world's major militaries.

This is exemplified in the constant antagonistic attitude of the troublemakers.

Did you expect to snipe and not have anyone answer or challenge your unproven assertions of deadliness?

Therefore, all a lawyer has to do is to pop online, gather thread, after thread, after thread, of evidence where an MMA troublemaker has started fight, after fight, after fight, after fight, after fight with TMA pracitioners to prove in court that the MMA pracitioner sought out fighting instruction so that they could prey upon civilized society.

Prey on civilized society? Who is preying on civilized society?

3. When some proven MMA, or TMA, troublemaker ends up in court, and is compared to the apparent "average joe" that they "defended" themselves against, do you actually think anyone is going to believe that the known troublemaker wasn't the one who started the fight?

Uh, court cases aren't really that simplistic.

4. All legislators need is one such case to try and make a name for themselves by calling for further legislation to restrict martial arts practice. They've already gone after the weapons and training tools. All it would take is a few such cases, hyped up by the media spin machine, to get regular people to support it. They've already got all of the UFC type evidence to show in a courtroom and they're already using it with very itchy trigger fingers.

If anything, an organized sport is less likely to bring down the wrath of legislators.

Playing "war" games in the ring, where the real threat of death has been completely removed, does nothing to improve your chance of survival against real criminals.

1. This is nonsense. Many MMA fighters have defended themselves very capably when attacked.

2. What is better preparation than MMA? What is your alternative? What sort of dojo training is more realistic?

So you spend 4 hours per day training? That's cool. During those 4 hours, while you've abandonded your loved ones to fend for themselves, is a criminal, or group of criminals, checking out your life?

Do you never leave home or something? What about work?

If so, they're going to know for a fact that you represent a very possible threat to their well-being and to their objective of getting what they want without getting hurt.

They're not going to like that too much. So, what's going to happen is they're just going to kill you, get you out of the way, and have fun with your family before killing them.

And you don't think they would do that regardless?

Sorry, but unarmed techniques aren't going to do anything for you, or for your loved ones, when some criminal blows your face off with a shotgun because "aliveness training" oozes off of you. Don't believe me? Ask some veteran police officers whether or not criminals think that way. Aliveness? OK. Whatever......

Any you have a magic anti-shotgun defense? Whats your better alternative? Being bulletproof? Dodging the bullets like some low-budget ninja film?

I've had some experience with the types of criminals I'm talking about. I was enlightened by the veteran police officers who were helping my family survive as to how to think to survive. This "aliveness" crap that keeps getting spouted isn't it. A person isn't "fully resisting" until they see you as someone who is really, truly trying to kill them and their loved ones. This "fully resisting" "partner" BS is one of the biggest loads of crap I've seen marketed to the MA community.

When any type of martial art training method can be proven to breed overly-aggressive, violent, antagonistic, and barbaric sociopaths, all martial arts will suffer. Something needs to be done from within the MA community at large to shut the troublemakers up before they end up ruining it for everyone. The MMA vs All MA garbage really needs to be put to bed before those from outside of the MA community decide to do it themselves.

You want to see violent, barbaric people? Look to RBSD boards where people are talking about ripping eyes out and the need for deadly or maiming force at everyturn and fantasizing about harming other people. Look at a certain few TMAists talking about the need for brutal, yet apparently ineffective tactics.

 

[zDom]

What we are ussually discussing with regards to self defense etc. is not so much whether someone is confident in what they have but what is most effective out of available options.

Confidence comes from knowing something is effective.

MMA has a very specific definition. Not all mixtures of multiple arts are considered MMA. MMA vs. TMA is NOT the same as crosstraining vs. one art either.

I haven't seen this specific definition. Is hapkido a "TMA"?

Is a MMA armbar or rear naked choke better than a hapkido armbar or rear naked choke?

It is rather the assertion that a certain mix of skills, principles, techniques and practices are the optimal mode of unarmed hand to hand fighting we are aware of. The challenges made by the Gracies, the Chute-box Academy, and many others are still open to anyone who thinks they can prove them wrong.

It is a false assertation. One-vs-one contests can only prove MMA is the optimal system for defeating challengers in one-vs-one contests.

I really need to see that official definition because to me, the Gracies are a TMA.

You like what you do. So do I. I don't believe, however, that what I do is more effective that what competent MMA practitioners do.

Maybe you should come train with us sometime. It might change your mind about what you think TMA is.

<broken hand story>

Neat story, but I prefer to defend myself and end up with nothing broken -- not even my hands.

This is the issue though - can the ones who seem effective in any particular school stack up favorably against those with different training practices? I realize it is politically correct in the martial arts to say a wing chun guy, a judo guy, a tkd guy, an MMA guy etc are all equally effective, its just the differences in the amount of practices that keeps them apart... I really don't think so. By now, one of the TMA guys that practices just as hard would have started winning fights against solid MMAists. It hasn't happened yet.

The MMAist are training specifically to train in MMA events. Can't we be equally effective and just completely not interested in proving it to you in a televised match?

The nuances of ground work are very complicated. The competitive MMA guys know a wide variety of submissions and chained techniques and conversions that get lost on the ground if you don't know what you're looking for. Its like a chess game down there.

Yes. Judo (the source of BJJ) has been playing that game for a long time.

Stand up (with no takedowns, no low kicks) is like a game of chess, too. A really, really fun one. Talk about chained techniques Amazing what I can hit you with when you don't know what you're looking for.

As much as I get tired of saying it, and as much as most of us are probably tired of hearing it, they should go beat Liddell, Hughes, or some other ranked fighter. It would totally change the outlook of a great many people, both traditionalists and modern fighters, on the Korean arts.

Or, they might just call it a fluke.

 

[zDom]

This is where you need to seriously refine your argument, as it comes across as very clear that you don't understand these techniques and tactics. They take many years to fully understand, and very few ever master things. There is a reason it takes people 10+ years to earn a BJJ Black belt.

The guys who stick around and get a BJJ black belt are TMA, though. MMA guys just pick up the basics and run with them, right?

And is almost completely irrelevant to fighting...

The last time I tried to hit a unwilling, hostile target in the head with a jump spinning heel kick I hit him. :shrug:

I reallt don't get why some people think this? Pro fighters have years of training, and put in more training hours in a month then most people do in a year. This stuff is not as "simple" as you seem to think it is. I mean, I can teach someone the basic movements of boxing in a hour or two, do you think that even if they are in top physical shape they will even be able to touch a low level pro after that?

This has nothing to do with MMA vs TMA effectiveness: this is a professional athlete vs part-time enthusiast. There are both types in both MMA and TMA.

Guess we're going to disagree there. No doubt they are tough as nails, but they are not pro-fighters, most never where.

They proved their techniques in real situations.

Well, like any other style, MMA can be done by everyone. Not everyone is going to get in the ring and fight, same as not all TKD Practitioners are going to compete in full contact at high levels.

But if they don't get in the ring, how do they know..aw nevermind

 

[MJS]

Guys, before this thread gets any further off course than it already has, lets do our best to stick to the original topic. We've seen more than our share of pressure testing, my art is better than yours threads. I believe the OP was asking who includes both methods into their training.

Mike

 

[zDom]

Guys, before this thread gets any further off course than it already has, lets do our best to stick to the original topic. We've seen more than our share of pressure testing, my art is better than yours threads. I believe the OP was asking who includes both methods into their training.

Mike

I'll need a complete list of what their training consists of, and I'll tell you what we are already doing.

We already know and train: rear naked choke, scoop throw, shoot, armbar, punch to face, elbow to face, guard, kimura lock, knee strike, wrap hands around head+pull to knee,

We also train other things, so not nearly as much focus on the above.

 

[Rook]

Confidence comes from knowing something is effective.

Well, confidence comes from believing something is effective. Someone might have a perfectly good techique and not be confident in it, or might have a useless one and feel assured that it is highly effective.

I haven't seen this specific definition. Is hapkido a "TMA"?

That would depend on how you define TMA. It seems to have all the trappings and practices of one. It also doesn't fall under MMA or RBSD, the other major umbrellas.

Is a MMA armbar or rear naked choke better than a hapkido armbar or rear naked choke?

Which variation? There are litterally more than a thousand ground armbar variations, and several hundred more (at least) standing up.

It is a false assertation. One-vs-one contests can only prove MMA is the optimal system for defeating challengers in one-vs-one contests.

I see this as the jumping off point for multiples as well. Someone who is incapable of dealing with a single opponent is likely not capable of dealing with multiples.

I really need to see that official definition because to me, the Gracies are a TMA.

I see.

Maybe you should come train with us sometime. It might change your mind about what you think TMA is.

Thank you for the offer, but if I change training anytime in the future, it will be because of practices that are better proven than the current ones.

Neat story, but I prefer to defend myself and end up with nothing broken -- not even my hands.

Fair enough. THe likelyhood of breaking your hands is rather low all things considered, and if it does happen, it isn't the end of the world.

The MMAist are training specifically to train in MMA events. Can't we be equally effective and just completely not interested in proving it to you in a televised match?

Sure. I'd like to see a match, televised or not, and under either MMA rules, fewer rules or none at all. I just don't believe that with all the interaction between MMAists and MMA fans (like me) and the TMA community that there are practitioners capable of changing our minds and the worldview of the martial arts that simply choose not to do so.

The MMA groups have tried pretty much everything, from flattery to massive cash offers, to prizes, publicity, secrecy, insults, invitations and challenges in order to try to induce people to stand against their fighters. If someone is just utterly unmoved by all this, I could see their students entering either on their behalf or just in pursuit of the potential benefits.

Yes. Judo (the source of BJJ) has been playing that game for a long time.

Yep.

Stand up (with no takedowns, no low kicks) is like a game of chess, too. A really, really fun one. Talk about chained techniques Amazing what I can hit you with when you don't know what you're looking for.

Definately. Sparring can be very technical, even at full speed, but the ground gives a greater ability to the technition to reduce the impact of speed and strength to really focus on strategy and technique. The guys that win at grappling are not so much the strong or the fast, but the very skilled.

Or, they might just call it a fluke.

Thats why we have lots of tournaments and lots of opportunities.

 

[Rook]

The guys who stick around and get a BJJ black belt are TMA, though. MMA guys just pick up the basics and run with them, right?

Actually, ussually not. A very large percentange of MMAists are BJJ blacks, which takes about 10 years on average (and has never been gotten in less than just short of four years, BJ Penn's record). Thats just one of the four arts. Top level wrestlers, solid boxers etc. also bring their skills to bear.

The last time I tried to hit a unwilling, hostile target in the headwith a jump spinning heel kick I hit him. :shrug:

Thats good. We MMA fans just wonder if that was necessarily the most likely or optimal way.

This has nothing to do with MMA vs TMA effectiveness: this is a professional athlete vs part-time enthusiast. There are both types in both MMA and TMA.

Sure.

They proved their techniques in real situations.

Almost any system can say so. The problem isn't whether someone managed to pull a technique or idea off once or even a thousand times, but rather if there is a better way to do it, and if it would work against high-caliber opponents.

But if they don't get in the ring, how do they know..aw nevermind

They won't be. Most part timers never get the impression they are on the same level as the pros.

 

[zDom]

No, just about all the top MMA fighters also happen to be very good at some other aspect. They are all excellent wrestlers, kickboxers, Jujitsu fighters or something. They are also very good, perhaps not excellent in other aspects as well.

You seem to have a very low level understanding in what it takes to train MMA, as do many others it seems. MMA is not a simple "Pick up the basics and hope in the ring sport"

According to http://www.docsports.com/ufc-fighters.html, some of the top MMA fighter are: Matt Hughes, Randy Couture, Chuck Liddell, Rich Franklin, Andrei Arlovski, Frank Mir, Georges St. Pierre, Jeremy Horn, Tito Ortiz and Yves Edwards.

How many of these guys are BJJ blackbelts? Are any of them?

So what's so wrong with saying "they picked up the basics and ran with them?" By that I meant, they built on whatever their fighting background was (college wrestling, boxing, even *gasp* Kyokushin karate -- a TMA!) then cherry picked a handfull of techniques they thought would be effective in rounding out their skills for the ring, and trained them.

None of these guys spent 10 years getting a BJJ blackbelt, then another 4 years of Muay Thai, then another 4 boxing, etc.

I have no doubt these guys train hard. They are professional athletes. That doesn't mean everybody else who throws on a MMA shirt and starts rolling on the mat is going to be as successful as them just because they idolize and try to emulate them. It doesn't mean they have found the Ultimate Formula of Fighting (aka MMA). Because each of them have different backgrounds.

Just because I tossed out a brief comment doesn't mean I don't have a clear understanding of what it takes to train for a MMA match.

It is a very complex sport, which overlaps with others, but is unique, with it's own strategies, it's own principals, and it's own techniques. Nothing in there is simple. A "simple" thing, like holding guard as you state above, is a very complex skill. Simply learning to hold guard and defend, not sweep, not attack, not escape, just stall is something that could be trained for months and still not fully mastered.

Yep a very specific set of techniques to deal with a very specific situation. And, accordingly, very effective in dealing with *that specific situation.*

This doesn't make everything else ineffective.

The question is, can a happy medium be found, I believe it can. But the first step is respect and understanding. Beliefs like this about MMA are as falacious as all the things you bang your head on the desk when you see MMA fans spout. And with those beliefs no medium can be reached on either side.

If one person has a goal of being a distance runner, and another has the goal of being the fastest sprinter, what kind of medium can be found between the two?

Different goals require different paths. If your goal is to train for a UFC or Pride Fight, you are going to train differently than if your goal is to stay in shape and be able to defend yourself.

I already respect those who train hard. It seems the only thing you want TMA'ists to "understand" is that we MUST embrace MMA to be effective.

 

[zDom]

Well, confidence comes from believing something is effective. Someone might have a perfectly good techique and not be confident in it, or might have a useless one and feel assured that it is highly effective.

And your point is? Are you implying that perhaps TMA has useless techniques and we just "feel assured that it is highly effective"?

Are we back to your argument that if you don't see it in the ring, it isn't effective? That anecdotes of techniques being effectively used aren't good enough proof for you?

Please clarify.

That would depend on how you define TMA. It seems to have all the trappings and practices of one. It also doesn't fall under MMA or RBSD, the other major umbrellas.

"The other major umbrellas"? Please give me YOUR definition of TMA. I probably know more about MMA than you think. Ask me.

And then tell me what you know about hapkido and why you think what we practice isn't effective.

Everything we do in the dojang is practiced in the context of "will this work against a resisting attacker?" Everything.

Which variation? There are litterally more than a thousand ground armbar variations, and several hundred more (at least) standing up.

Several thousand armbar variations? BS. Name 10. Not ten ways to get to an armbar -- that number is infinite. Name just 10 different ways to do an armbar. You can even group ground variations and standing variations.

Maybe I do have something to learn -- show me.

I see this as the jumping off point for multiples as well. Someone who is incapable of dealing with a single opponent is likely not capable of dealing with multiples.

And who is incapable of dealing with single opponents? Granted, I don't have a whole lot of experience lately with a single opponent. The last couple of self defense situations I found myself in were all MULTIPLE ATTACKERS. And I came out on the other side with NO INJURIES. My attackers were hurt. So I am capable -- despite my lack of MMA training.

Looks like TKD + HKD (both TMAs, right?) is working out just fine for me.

I see.

What makes you think BJJ is a MMA? Just because you want to put it in a category that really means "all the martial arts I think are REALLY effective"?

Thank you for the offer, but if I change training anytime in the future, it will be because of practices that are better proven than the current ones.

Don't change your training. Just come in and try us once for a visit. Heck, just come and watch. I watch MMA on TV all the time. Yet you think I know nothing about MMA. You have NEVER seen us train hapkido, yet you seem to think you know so much about us.

Come visit.

Fair enough. THe likelyhood of breaking your hands is rather low all things considered, and if it does happen, it isn't the end of the world.

Not likely that I will break MY hands because I train them. More likely those guys who only hit things with taped up hands will. Not the end of the world, but guess what? Grappling isn't nearly as much fun if you have a broken wrist.

Sure. I'd like to see a match, televised or not, and under either MMA rules, fewer rules or none at all. I just don't believe that with all the interaction between MMAists and MMA fans (like me) and the TMA community that there are practitioners capable of changing our minds and the worldview of the martial arts that simply choose not to do so.

I would love to see some of those matches, too. But the options are either: remain in a TMA state of mind by not focusing on the specific situation of one-vs-one fights, or train specifically to fight that kind of fight... which makes them a MMAist.

The MMA groups have tried pretty much everything, from flattery to massive cash offers, to prizes, publicity, secrecy, insults, invitations and challenges in order to try to induce people to stand against their fighters. If someone is just utterly unmoved by all this, I could see their students entering either on their behalf or just in pursuit of the potential benefits.

There it is again: if we don't step in the ring and prove to the MMA fanbois that our stuff works, you guys will continue to throw insults, invitations and challenges our way.

Howabout this: if you don't come play Olympic TKD with me, I refuse to believe your Muay Thai and boxing techniques work. They just aren't effective unless you prove it in the Olympic TKD ring.

Definately. Sparring can be very technical, even at full speed, but the ground gives a greater ability to the technition to reduce the impact of speed and strength to really focus on strategy and technique. The guys that win at grappling are not so much the strong or the fast, but the very skilled.

Like Gracie used his strategy and technique to overcome Matt Hughes' speed and strength?

Thats why we have lots of tournaments and lots of opportunities.

Ok -- for the sake of argument, how many MMA guys do I have to defeat before the MMA fanbois will give their stamp of approval and declare my art effective? Will it be worth quitting my job, rehabilitating injuries between matches? Losing time with my kids?

 

[zDom]

Thats good. We MMA fans just wonder if that was necessarily the most likely or optimal way. ... The problem isn't whether someone managed to pull a technique or idea off once or even a thousand times, but rather if there is a better way to do it, and if it would work against high-caliber opponents.

Why does it have to be the most likely or optimal way? I thought we were discussing "effective."

Better way? Fights are dynamic. Training a wide variety of responses improves your chances. That's what TMAs do.

You think a scoop throw is "better" than a major outer reaping thow (Osoto Gari) just because it is easier to learn and you see it used in the ring more often?

Which is better -- a screwdriver or a hammer? An allen wrench or a crescent wrench? Shouldn't we just find the best tools and throw out the rest? No -- because different tools are "best" in different situations.

And why should I only keep techniques that work against high-caliber opponents? Is Matt Hughes out to get me?

I need tools that help me in what I am most likely to have to deal with: a small group of drunk, mean hicks.

 

[Cryozombie]

And why should I only keep techniques that work against high-caliber opponents? Is Matt Hughes out to get me?

Apparently yes. The argument always seems to come back to having to defend yourself against an MMA guy, so the only thing I can think is that they must be out there circling like sharks waiting to start fights.

 

[MJS]

Mod. Note.
Please, keep the conversation on topic.

-Mike Slosek
-MT Supermod