zDom
Senior Master
Rook: I'd still like to hear you answer these questions.
Yet another TMA vs. MMA debate
- Thread starter Andrew Green
- Start date
Rook: I'd still like to hear you answer these questions.
Everyone has an opinion. Its the evidence that matter... and the problem is that it doesn't appear that any is really being presented. People have pet theories about why MMA doesn't work, shouldn't work, or should only be as good as any other art. What they don't have is anything beyond their statements to make me believe them.
You could certainly send one. Most of the promotions would be earger to put on a comparison with a high-ranked expert. Also, if the rules aren't desirable, there is still the Gracie challenge and the Chute-Box academy challenge, which offer no-rules matches for $10,000 cash prizes if won.
How do you define expert?
I'd like to see a tape where the master actually accepts their challenge.
Yes.
There is a concept called standard of proof, which hold that assertions without evidence don't really carry any weight, even if they assertion is made repeatedly or on the internet.
Kwan Jang
Purple Belt
I hope you gentlemen don't mind me butting in on your debate, but I may be able to provide a little common ground. If not, I'll butt out and mind my own business.
I was an active practitioner of Hapkido from 1977 until 1998 and though I cross trained in several systems, if you forced me to "claim a single style", I would probably have had to say Hapkido. I have also earned a master's rank in that system.
Since 1998, I have (what I believe) evolved into a MMA'ist, but I do not shun my TMA roots. There is much from my TMA training that I still use and teach. In fact, it could be argued that all of MMA is rooted in TMA's (if you use a broad definition of such and include the martial sports, many of which are older than the modern version of most TMA's), though the MMA mix is causing much more momentum in the evolution of the martial arts than in any previous era (IMO).
A common argument of the MMA enthusiast is that "if it don't rule in the cage, it don't work for real". Well, there are a lot of things in the TMA's that really were tested in real-life combat and passed the test. There are also many things that are commonly taught that work great on a cooperative partner, but not on a resisting opponent under adrenal stress. Many of the training methods, that are there for safety, do not give many TMA students a real feel for how to use practical application of much of what they learn. OTOH, many MMA trainees ignore (often with disdain) many of the static drills or cooperative drills that would allow them to broaden their skill sets and later take them live.
My main critique of the effectiveness of much of Hapkido is that too many of it's techniques rely on fine motor skills that are compromised under adrenal stress. Also, most practitioners do not train enough in a "live" fashion. My biggest compliment to Hapkido is that it is still mostly taught as a "complete" system (though almost all systems started this way and can still be taught and trained this way). There are some who refer to it as the "original MMA". Also, as primarily a combat system, it does include strategies and techniques that go beyond the use of force that a sport-based approach would deem appropriate for their intent.
For my own MMA mix, I have been able to cross train at a high enough levels in diffrent systems to make what I learned (and taught) in Hapkido almost obsolete. The striking of MT, boxing and TKD. The ground work of BJJ, Submssion Grappling, and NHB (including ground striking). The joint locks and pressure point work of Small Circle JJ and Ryukyu Kempo Jitsu and the weapons work of the FMA's. Extensive study of each, integrated into a MMA whole has been, for me, a further step in my evolution as a martial artist on a path that my Hapkido training helped to begin.
I was an active practitioner of Hapkido from 1977 until 1998 and though I cross trained in several systems, if you forced me to "claim a single style", I would probably have had to say Hapkido. I have also earned a master's rank in that system.
Since 1998, I have (what I believe) evolved into a MMA'ist, but I do not shun my TMA roots. There is much from my TMA training that I still use and teach. In fact, it could be argued that all of MMA is rooted in TMA's (if you use a broad definition of such and include the martial sports, many of which are older than the modern version of most TMA's), though the MMA mix is causing much more momentum in the evolution of the martial arts than in any previous era (IMO).
A common argument of the MMA enthusiast is that "if it don't rule in the cage, it don't work for real". Well, there are a lot of things in the TMA's that really were tested in real-life combat and passed the test. There are also many things that are commonly taught that work great on a cooperative partner, but not on a resisting opponent under adrenal stress. Many of the training methods, that are there for safety, do not give many TMA students a real feel for how to use practical application of much of what they learn. OTOH, many MMA trainees ignore (often with disdain) many of the static drills or cooperative drills that would allow them to broaden their skill sets and later take them live.
My main critique of the effectiveness of much of Hapkido is that too many of it's techniques rely on fine motor skills that are compromised under adrenal stress. Also, most practitioners do not train enough in a "live" fashion. My biggest compliment to Hapkido is that it is still mostly taught as a "complete" system (though almost all systems started this way and can still be taught and trained this way). There are some who refer to it as the "original MMA". Also, as primarily a combat system, it does include strategies and techniques that go beyond the use of force that a sport-based approach would deem appropriate for their intent.
For my own MMA mix, I have been able to cross train at a high enough levels in diffrent systems to make what I learned (and taught) in Hapkido almost obsolete. The striking of MT, boxing and TKD. The ground work of BJJ, Submssion Grappling, and NHB (including ground striking). The joint locks and pressure point work of Small Circle JJ and Ryukyu Kempo Jitsu and the weapons work of the FMA's. Extensive study of each, integrated into a MMA whole has been, for me, a further step in my evolution as a martial artist on a path that my Hapkido training helped to begin.
Wow, I've just read through all of this debate and one thing is very clear to me being an outsider to the American MA scene is how much rancour there is between MMA and TMA! From what I've also gathered from the MMA forum the MMA scene is very different from ours here. The argument between the two is not very relevant here, we have a great many MMA clubs and a great many events for fighters to go on. Many fighters like myself do TMA and MMA and teach both. Fighters are respectful people who appreciate MA full stop. We have many amateur and semi professional fighters as well as pros. I've fought in TMA comps too and the atmosphere and attitude from the fighters is the same on both.
As for what's better for SD surely it's whatever works! I can't do high kicks so they don't work for me while they might for somelse else younger faster and more flexible. If someone is attacking me I will quite happily bash them with my umbrella if that's what it takes, stuff pride! I want to survive and I will do whatever from whatever to do that. I will headbutt, bite, gouge, whatever and I won't be thinking 'oh what style shall I do it in while I'm doing it.' A few of our fighters are doormen at some very "interesting" nightspots, they don't rubbish TMA or MMA they just do what has to be done.
To be honest the argument between the two is not actually very interesting, your MMA seems to be based solely on the UFC which quite frankly isn't that a good a showcase for MMA (while admittedly it is bringing it to the public notice.) I'm sorry to pour water on your arguments, it's not done out of disrespect but I truly don't understand why you are arguing. If you are happy with what you do why does anyone elses style matter?
As for what's better for SD surely it's whatever works! I can't do high kicks so they don't work for me while they might for somelse else younger faster and more flexible. If someone is attacking me I will quite happily bash them with my umbrella if that's what it takes, stuff pride! I want to survive and I will do whatever from whatever to do that. I will headbutt, bite, gouge, whatever and I won't be thinking 'oh what style shall I do it in while I'm doing it.' A few of our fighters are doormen at some very "interesting" nightspots, they don't rubbish TMA or MMA they just do what has to be done.
To be honest the argument between the two is not actually very interesting, your MMA seems to be based solely on the UFC which quite frankly isn't that a good a showcase for MMA (while admittedly it is bringing it to the public notice.) I'm sorry to pour water on your arguments, it's not done out of disrespect but I truly don't understand why you are arguing. If you are happy with what you do why does anyone elses style matter?
Interesting point, Tez. I've noticed that people in the UK writing about MA do have this somewhat different take on things. In his August or September newsletter, for example, Iain Abernethy describes a kind of workshop/clinic he participated in with a bunch of outstanding MAists and fighters from `traditional', `reality-based' and MMA systems, all trying to learn from each other's techniques; ultimately a video based on their discoveries is going to come out from IA's company. There was obviously nothing but the greatest comraderie amongst the participants, and no sense of incompatibity between the traditional karate that Abernethy bases his art in and any of the other fighting systems. It was a real eye-opener.
It kind of makes sense, though, because what Abernethy and others in his `cause' want to do is reinvest in the traditional arts the full range of fighting techniques that they argue---very convincingly I find---to be implicit in the katas/hyungs/patterns of all of the Asian MAs that have such forms. So it stands to reason that they would be interested in what MMA people have to say about that same full range.
What the UK experience says to me is that there really isn't anything to argue about, certainly not with as much heat as we've seen in the past---just as you say!
Iain Abernethy's seminars are excellent, if there's a chance you can get hold of any of his DVDs etc do so! A lot of us go to seminars that are held by different styles, I recently went to an Aikido one, a Judo one and a BJJ one.I train sometimes with a TKD club because they don't have a female instructor and the male instructor likes the girls to see a female instructor. Next year our club is off to Thailand to train at the Fairtex camp in Bangkok. My club members train with other clubs doing TMA, boxing, Muay Thai etc. Everything has something to offer.
I think a lot of intellectualising goes on here instead of training? I know only of the States from the media, is it such a violent place that everyone is hung up on SD? MMA is no more brute force and ignorance than any TMA. I think it may have suffered in the States with comparisons to pro wrestling which never really hit it off to such a large scale over here so MMA is seen as something distinct in it's own right.
I think a lot of intellectualising goes on here instead of training? I know only of the States from the media, is it such a violent place that everyone is hung up on SD? MMA is no more brute force and ignorance than any TMA. I think it may have suffered in the States with comparisons to pro wrestling which never really hit it off to such a large scale over here so MMA is seen as something distinct in it's own right.
Yep, I've got his DVDs on the Pinans and the one on Naihanchi (along w/two of his books on decoding the combat applications in the katas). I might be in the UK for six months or so next year, and if so I'm going to make sure I get to at least one of his gigs...
That's my take on it as well. Sounds like you're doing just the kind of thing that Abernethy described with that workshop he participated in. What I find interesting is that IA clearly defines himself as a karateka, but on his understanding of karate, there's a lot more in heaven and earth than our usual philosophy of MA dreams of. The story about Matsumura learning the Chinto system from the marooned Chinese fighter of that name and then constructing the Chinto kata to record it always seemed to me to have the ring of truth, whether or not it happened quite the way it's usually reported. I have a hard time imaging that someone like Matsumura would have been too worried about doctrinal purity if he were confronted by something that worked effectively...
Isn't there an old chestnut in the music world---good composers imitate, great ones steal? Probably true in a lot of other arts as well, including the martial ones...
That sounds about right, Tez. But I think there's another angle... for some reason, traditiional MAists in the US seem a bit more insecure about their own styles and tend to be more reactive in the face of suggestions about the effectiveness of their arts than people in the UK (don't know if the US is any more violent than anywhere else, but we seem to be keenly aware of what violence there is and worry about it quite a bit). And a lot of times people in MMAs---not so much on MT, our moderators keep a lid on things!
---seem to feel the need to bait traditionalists, who then bait back... hard to say why so much passion and heat gets invested in it. Maybe we just like to wrangle more over here!
Hey Tez, thanks so much for the invite, and I'll definitely take you up on it if I'm able to go. Won't know till sometime in the new year, will let you know if we can get there. I'd really like to take advantage of the openness of the UK martial arts scene, for sure!
Similar threads
