Sign-up for Free Fighting Techniques & Videos
Delivered Daily to your Inbox

The best of both worlds?

0

Free Fighting Techniques, Fight Videos and Training Courses

Sign-up to Receive Free Fighting Techniques, Fight Videos and Training Courses from the Warrior Combatives Academy 

privacy We value your privacy and would never spam you

The best of both worlds?
Original Poster: BLACK PANTA
Forum: Others
Posted On: 28-03-2005, 21:29

Orginal Post: BLACK PANTA: I have seen both the ?dark and the light side? The TMA and MMA (mixed/modern MA). I must say that fortunately I have not seen the big attitudes on either side. You know, TMAs are better than MMAs. And that is surprising because of the atmosphere in the whole BJJ sphere. Although I have not seen them in my schools. The attitude is prevalent, ON BOTH SIDES. I thought it was only on the MMA side, seeing that I was on the other side of the fence for so long. But the TMA (CMA is what I am exposed to) also raises it?s nose to the MMAs. I?m thankful that both my Sifu and my BJJ instructor don?t have that attitude. Both of these schools of thought are effective in different ways. I am curious as to why these better than thou attitudes are so prevalent? I?m thinking it?s because of ignorance. I have personally experienced the attitudes, seeing that I am dwelling in both realities.

Just for point. Although the attitudes are not big at either schools, there are still some who dwell on the opposite sides of the fence. A few in my BJJ schools don?t even want to hear about the TMAs and in the Kung Fu scene, they look down at you when you say you study an MMA, especially if you study BJJ.

Post: 8LimbsScientist:

The problem is that both sides of the coin are in natural opposition to each other. MMA was created on the premise that TMAs weren’t effective. That was UFC’s 1-5 or so were supposed to “prove.” The problem is that many TMA schools ARE inferior to MMA gyms in terms of effectiveness (I didn’t say all) and many people who train in MMA are former TMAists who feel betrayed to have spent so much time on something that turned out to be a waste.

On the other hand TMAs have to defend their effectiveness by disparaging MMA competition.

But the truth is that you can’t judge TMAs by the McDojos. And TMAists need to realize that their training CAN be improved by implementing some aspects of MMA training. I enjoy traditional martial arts, and I also enjoy martial sports. I don’t see why you can’t enjoy both and learn from both.>

Post: wuming:

I think alot of the more “mature” disagreement comes from the two opposing philosophies towards training and a lot of the more less “mature” disagreement comes from what people see on tv. Personally, I have only practiced a TMA and I can not justify from my own experience my preference over any MMA. The only argument that I could construct regarding my attitude would have to be an a priori analysis of the philosophies. But, since this analysis only derivies from a priori reasoning I can only say that my propostion that I prefer TMA’s to MMA’s is only an attitude or a belief. It is in NO WAY A STATEMENT OF AN EMPIRICAL TRUTH. The only experience I have with MMA’s is from what I have seen on tv; and this is hardly convincing evidence to begin with. I find nothing wrong with these debates because they are a good exercise in analyzing the philosophies of each person’s own style which can lead to a deeper understanding of one’s own style’s (sic) principles.>

Post: wuming:

8limbsScientist

I think you brought up a good point, and I think it might be interesting to expand upon your idea some more to shed some light on the debate.

Exactly what was it that the now MMA pioneers found ineffective with TMAs?
This is obviously the core of the whole problem that we need to clearly define before we can proceede.>

Post: 8LimbsScientist:

For the longest time, traditional karate tournaments were “no-contact” under the pretext that karate strikes were too devestating to allow contact. Old no-contact tournaments looked little like modern TMA tournaments and NOTHING like MMA. Basically it was two guys with no pads standing planted on the ground barely moving before suddenly exploding into an attack (which of course stopped inches away from actually striking the other person).

Then came the advent of safety pads and actual contact sparring. Suddenly not only did we discover that TMA strikes WEREN”T as deadly as everyone thought, over time we discovered that non traditional footwork such as what is used in boxing, and boxing style punches as opposed to strictly traditional knife hands, etc. were actually very effective and often MORE effective in competition.

I mention this just to point out the beginning of the dissolution of the idea of the mystic, unbeatable, deadly karatay master. Basically what I’m saying is that the appearance of full-contact karate and/or kickboxing challenged many of the assumptions people had about the martial arts they’d been training for years. Was the short fat guy in the back of the classroom with the callused knuckles and the black belt really way deadlier than the young athletic linebacker with the yellow belt? Nowadays, the idea that a black belt is an unbeatable killing machine is cliche even among the regular public.

Now I kind of think the same thing has happened with MMA. Its challenging the preconceptions many of us held as martial artists before MMA. I’m saying “us” even though I’m way too young to be included in all this, lol. Its just a figure of speech. For instance: “Rolling around on the ground is useless, I could never be taken down, I would just kick him in the head when he tried to get me on the ground. And if I somehow ended up on the ground I would just hit him in the groin or something to disable him.” Now we all know better.

What is TMA missing? Take the following with the understanding that I’m not insulting anyone, but just telling you why many people were turned off so much by TMA when MMA became available. 1. A lack of an ability to cope with BJJ. The majority of martial arts taught 10 years ago didn’t bother with takedown defense, and groundfighting was WAAAY behind what BJJ could do. 2. Lack of athletic training. People went from kicking and punching thin air to training like an athlete and realized which one would produce the better fighter. 3. Lack of competitive wins for TMAs in MMA. Like it or not TMAists were consistently being beaten in MMA by people who trained in the “combat sports” like BJJ or Muay Thai.

Imagine spending 10 years of your life getting your black belt in TKD and then being repeatedly submitted or choked out by a BJJ blue belt? Or studying Kenpo for years and then not being able to compete against an average kickboxer. Thats going to cause a sense of betrayal and a backlash.

Obviously there are effective TMAists out there, but that doesn’t change the fact that for the most part, MMA is made up of people who chose MMA over TMA for various reasons, or people who were disgusted by their McDojo training and will never go back. And of course when everyone is saying TMA sucks, the TMAists are going to respond with “MMA isn’t the street!”

I study both and I enjoy both. But I honestly believe there are some things that TMA would do well to adopt from MMA in order to be more effective.>

Post: bamboo:

Its in the training.
“TMA”, “MMA”, its all the same techniques, its in the training.

I know a guy that swears he does MMA, no, he does BJJ, period. Bjj is a “modern” art that helped show how “old school” training was no longer practical. Its in the training.

TMA was once practical because you really did test it on the battlefield. I’m quite certain that if modern karateka did thier normal training but also full contact testing they would be on par with professional MMA strikers (kyokushin anyone? :wink: ).

MMAs are not superior, its in the training.

An example of such, I’m going to a local jiujitsu club this evening to “test myself”, it was set up ahead of time for me to spar with one of the instructors so we could work out and test ourselves. Will I be better prepared for real world application than the other shodans in my club that don’t leave the dojo to test themselves? I think so.

Its in the training.

-b>

Post: 8LimbsScientist:

bamboo

I agree with you. As I’ve said before, there isn’t anything necessarily wrong with the actual techniques in TMA, but what is missing is modern training methods…or even some old ones.

One thing I’ve always wondered…is it necessarily fair to hold everyone up to the standards of a competitive MMA athlete?

One thing I try to keep in mind when considering other schools though, is people’s different goals. Not everyone lives the kind of life that necessitates MMA Athlete-level training for self-defense. I’m not excusing blackbelts who never learn to fight, but I have some understanding for a guy who doesn’t feel the need to be doing sprint interval training 4x a week and hitting the gym 5x a week to supplement his 6x a week training schedule. A guy can learn to handle himself in a fight with much less training than that.>

Post: wuming:

Thank you 8limbs for the nice intro and definition.

It seems that most of the problems that the MMA’s have with the TMA’s you mentioned are associated with karate, tae kwon do, and the like. Personally, I can not vouch for either of these arts. If the MMA’s were designed to solve the “problems” of TMA’s that includes all the TMA’s, not just karate and tae kwon do. I think the main problem with the assualt on TMA’s comes from the fact that people are judging the way they are being used in tournaments.

Alot of the most lasting and respected TMA’s were developed for actually defending yourself in a real world situation (ie. the battlefield, “bandits”, and the like). Obviously tournaments are very much different from the real world; namely in the fact that you are not trying to save your own life and disable the opponent’s capability to fight back in a tournament. The mentality is completely different no matter how you look at it (even if it is so called “no holds barred” which still has rules of its own). The problem is when using a TMA in a tournament with certain rules and trying to make sure you don’t severly injure your opponent the use of power and a lot of the techniques are very illegal. Alot of this argument is hard to generalize across different arts for the obvious reasons (different philosophies, different schools, different attitudes, “mcdojos”, etc); but for example, I would not be allowed to strike someone in the back in a lot of tournaments so that would remove 90% of my training from fighting in a tournament, furthermore, I would not be able to disable the opponent’s ability to fight back because obviously I wouldn’t be trying to “hurt” him. Anyways, my point is the respectable TMA’s were designed for the street not a tournament so the training will be different from those designed for tournament fighting. MMA’s from what you mentioned above were designed with tournament functioning in mind. Even though they are very similar, these are two very different realms and each method (mma or tma) should stay within its own realm and serve its primary purpose and not play the part of the other.

*Note: I am not saying that TMA’s should not compete in tournaments. If anyone practicing a TMA decides to compete in a tournament he should have the purpose and function of his art in mind, try to adapt it the best that he can and if he fails so be it; it does not necessarily mean that a TMA is inferior; he should always keep in mind that he is trying to use his system in a realm outside of its intended purpose. You could use a screwdriver to pound in a nail, but wouldn’t a hammer be much better? Even though it can cross over in some instance, the screwdriver was designed with fastening a screw in mind and that is what it is best suited for.>

Post: zefff:

I dont really buy the terms TMA, MMA or whatever. Yeah they are general descriptive tags but to me MA (or efficient hurting) should be split between limited MA or unlimited MA. MMA and TMA both have procedures and modes or ways of thinking and acting that are learnt by the practioners. They both put limits on the individual. They both are simply customs that are kept alive in peoples heads. But why there is a boundary between them is beyond me. They are one and the same thing to me in my cushy, easy life. Im sure that if the western world was a huge warzone, MMA, TMA – no-one would give a shit! You just would have survivors and dead people.

I can see that today TMA is supposed to be a custom of combat efficiency, tested over generations and MMA is supposed to be a blend of the most efficient techniques for a certain scenario – unarmed duelling.

To me they both have limits so why not forget about all that and just focus on improving yourself through whatever means you see fit. people are fearful and do constuct their own realities in their head so if a mans beliefs offend you why not think about why you feel offence? I feel that to ‘know’ you are right and then striving to show another man his wrongness to prove your correctness is actually your wrongness. I dont know if that makes sense.

Blending is not a new thing. Blending is natures way, it is strength. Isolation is unnatural.

The biggest challenge for me as a practioner is facing and dealing with my own fear and ignorance. I can see how easy it is to not want to deal with our weakness in behaviour as well as technique.

I cant really go into this because Im busy at work, so sorry if it doesnt make sense. :roll:>

Post: 8LimbsScientist:

Wuming and Zefff

You guys both make good points.

I think the distinction between MMA and TMA is basically that MMA is anything trained in a modern athletic manner ostensibly for the purpose of NHB competition. TMA is basically everything else, lol. That means TMA encompasses A LOT of martial arts.

As Bamboo correctly pointed out, I can’t say I train MMA since I only train Muay Thai…but MT is a martial sport that focuses on athletic training, etc. On the other hand, I train in TKD and HKD. I agree that limiting yourself to one isn’t necessary. Its good to try new things and broaden your horizons.

I think certain “MMA” maxims should be applied to every martial art though.>

Post: wuming:

Ahhh very nice post Zefff. I definately like your terms and think that they should be the more appropriate perspectives in the MA world. Definately an origanally ingenius analysis. I think we should all adopt that perspective, but for the sake of the original argument I just want to clear up some ideas in my previous post.

First off, I would like to ascribe more appropriately clear definitions for TMA and MMA.

1. TMA’s are the “original” art forms designed fully for “reality” self-defense purposes. In other words kill or be killed (or something to that degree, I don’t want to put myself in the trap of saying you have to kill your opponent). While each TMA does evolve and change with the environment and the different schools, the fundamental principles of the art form should still remain in tact; that does not mean that technique or the expression of the principles do not change (because for all practical purposes they will). Traditional training revolves around the explicit principles of any given form and does not disregard any of the original principles or add any extra to the list. Traditional training can and should include anything from strength, to cardio, to endurance, to flexibility, to focus, and to defense training and anything I failed to mention. When you train in the traditional method no aspect of conditioning should be left out of the curriculum. This means that all the exercises should follow directly from the art’s priniciples and cover every aspect of conditioning to turn you into a fighter. The end of TMA is to save one’s life. Anything and everything goes, there are no confines or limitations whatsoever.

2. MMA’s are arts that were designed to prove the inadequacy of TMA’s in the realm of competition. MMA’s may or may not follow some set of explicit principles, but the key is they are not obliged to — their principles are subject to change. MMA training can and can not involve the same type of conditioning as TMA’s but the conditioning itself may not be found in the exercises of the art or experessed in the art’s principles. Outside cross training is usually a must (while in TMA’s it is optional). MMA’s are by definition mixed martial arts so they will add and subtract principles where deemed fit. The end of MMA is victory in the ring following the guidelines of the competition.

Well here are my definitions, I am running out of time so I will add more to these when I have time and see any lack of clarity.>

Post: 8LimbsScientist:

Just wanted to make a few points about the definitions above:

Your TMA definition defines the ideal TMA training. But the problem so many people have with TMA is that so few TMA schools still train this way. Also, are “do” arts really the vicious kill or be killed military arts their “jitsu” forebears were?

Also, let me clarify something about MMA. It wasn’t really created for the specific purpose of proving TMAs . After that people started training in those arts that seemed to be most succesful in the cage.inadequacy, thats not necessarily fair. In fact, I’d even say that MMA was never really purposely created. You could argue that the Gracies organized the UFC in the early days in order to prove that BJJ is the best martial art, and also to make some money Mainly, boxing, kickboxing, wrestling, BJJ. People didn’t start training in these arts in order to point anything out about TMAs, they started training in this way to be succesful in this sport, and the anti-TMA attitude is just something certain people developed on their own.>

Post: Ninja Kl0wn:

[quote=wuming 
It seems that most of the problems that the MMA’s have with the TMA’s you mentioned are associated with karate, tae kwon do, and the like. Personally, I can not vouch for either of these arts. If the MMA’s were designed to solve the “problems” of TMA’s that includes all the TMA’s, not just karate and tae kwon do. I think the main problem with the assualt on TMA’s comes from the fact that people are judging the way they are being used in tournaments.

Alot of the most lasting and respected TMA’s were developed for actually defending yourself in a real world situation (ie. the battlefield, “bandits”, and the like). Obviously tournaments are very much different from the real world; namely in the fact that you are not trying to save your own life and disable the opponent’s capability to fight back in a tournament. The mentality is completely different no matter how you look at it (even if it is so called “no holds barred” which still has rules of its own). The problem is when using a TMA in a tournament with certain rules and trying to make sure you don’t severly injure your opponent the use of power and a lot of the techniques are very illegal. Alot of this argument is hard to generalize across different arts for the obvious reasons (different philosophies, different schools, different attitudes, “mcdojos”, etc); but for example, I would not be allowed to strike someone in the back in a lot of tournaments so that would remove 90% of my training from fighting in a tournament, furthermore, I would not be able to disable the opponent’s ability to fight back because obviously I wouldn’t be trying to “hurt” him. Anyways, my point is the respectable TMA’s were designed for the street not a tournament so the training will be different from those designed for tournament fighting. MMA’s from what you mentioned above were designed with tournament functioning in mind. Even though they are very similar, these are two very different realms and each method (mma or tma) should stay within its own realm and serve its primary purpose and not play the part of the other. [/quote 

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a prime example of why there is such a rift between the MMA and TMA worlds. “MMA is a just a sport and isn’t good for self-defence, and my art only fails in NHB competition because our techniques are far too deadly to use.” The traditional martial artist knows his art works because some man who’s been dead for hundreds of years used it effectively. The mixed martial artist knows his art works because HE has used it effectively. That is a huge difference. The primary arguement of traditional martial artists which was stated by wuming here is often returned back at them. If you cannot defend against the hard strikes and return a punch to the face of a man who you have time to prepare for and know you will be fighting, how do you expect to defend and land a fingerjab to the eyes of a man who attacks you unexpectedly at a moment of his choice that would put you at a severe disadvantage to begin with? Yes, at one point in the past all traditional arts saw combat. However, do you perform the art exactly the same way as your teacher? Of course not. Over the decades (and centuries in cases) since the arts have seen widescale use in combat, it is very plausible that the art has changed. Even if the exact same techniques are taught, it is likely that the original context has been lost.

Bamboo hit the nail on the head earlier when he said it was all in the training. The reason the mixed martial artist is dominate in the fight world is not because the traditional martial artist has his hands tied behind his back because of his “deadly” techniques. It is because of the way they train that they are dominate, techniques themselves are irrelevant.

Regardless of what art someone is training in, whether for sport or reality self defence, the training should be as realistic as possible. Let’s take self-defence against a knife as an example an examine it from the stereotypical training styles of TMA and MMA. Assume both learn the exact same defense against a stab at stomach level. As the TMA advances in skill, he trains to make that defense tighter, make his hand placement more exact and so forth, but he continues to train against just the stab to the stomach. The MMA gets the jist of the technique, but does not bother with whether his hand is turned at a 45 degree angle or only 35. For him, improving on the technique means his partner now punches and kicks at him, attempts to shove him against a wall, tries to bind him up and hold him in place while stabbing with increasing speed and power as the trainee’s skill develops. One progresses by increasing precision, the other progresses by increasing the resistance.
Kotegashi wrist lock as another prime example. This is definately not standard technique in the average MMA repetoire. I won’t argue the effectiveness of the technique, as it will seriously fuck a wrist up. If all my training for this lock consists of a man starting three feet away and running at me to deliver a sword hand strike that I snag out of mid air to redirect him and put him down with the lock, then I’m not learning an effective application of that technique. However if I train by having a guy arm’s length away start slinging a flurry of haymakers at me with no warning and trying to wrestle me to the ground, and I learn how to bind up his arms and snag the wrist from there (a much more likely scenario in the real world), then I have come out with an effective application of a “traditional” techniqe.

Another prime division between the two camps is the necessity for physical conditioning. The stereotypical TMA considers it a good thing that will improve his fighting ability. The MMA considers it an absolute necessity. Physical conditioning is equally as important as technical skill, this is a fact presented to us by successful warriors since the time of Sparta. Modern sports science has presented us with more effective ways to make our bodies stronger and more fit. The mixed martial artist embraces these training advancements, the traditional martial artist does not. The model-T served the necessary functions of a car, and will still get you from place to place today. That said, my corvette serves that function in a far superior manner.

btw, I realize there are exceptions to everything on both sides of the coin, I’m generalizing here.>

Post: Bushi:

Ninja Klown has T3H C0RRECT X 10. I was going to address the previous comments, but decided not to, because they almost always turn into an MMA is sport and TMA is battlefield type debate.

The real problem lies at the door step of most TMAs. Let me explain.

I have as of this month been training in TMAs for 20 years. That is longer than some have been breathing on this board.

I saw the responses to the UFC in the early 90’s. I have seen and heard the evolution of excuses why MMA/BJJ guys trash and I mean “TRASH” TMA practitioners in the ring AND AT CHALLENGE MATCHES.

The problem is ego.

The TMAs are so sold on the effectiveness of their art that they search and strive and find any excuse to justify that they are T3H C0RRECT. They do not want to admit they need something else or that how they do things is not as effective as “those” guys. It hurts. I know. I did not find out until I sparred a BJJ WHITE BELT. A White Belt people.

The sparring session went like this. Bow, Flurry of strikes, I throw with Uchi Mata and proceed to get RNC’d from back mount. (Just like Pardo vs. Royce UFC2) We go again. Flurry of strikes, I do a double leg take down (I was a HS wrestler). He pulls guard walks his legs up, spins under to arm bar.

His total training time about 1.5 years. Mine at the time 18 years.

Now those that would like to think I’m out of shape or suck as a MA, go ahead and tell yourself that. I am one of the most proficient MA I know. I was and am one of the most in shape people I know. If you think I have never trained ground fighting, well, I wrestled throughout HS trained Judo, teach JJJ (style which has an extensive ne waza emphasis) and trained Ground defensive tactics for LE.

I’m not writing this to impress you with my credentials, F- that, I’m married and get plenty of affection from my wife. I’m trying to open your mind.

Train your TMA, train it until your hearts content, but you will never understand until you experience the difference. Its like trying to explain the sunset to a blind man.

Proof is in the pudding.

I teach JJJ and I have my own school, but I supplement my training studying BJJ and training MMA. That was a hard shot to my ego, but I am a better person for it as well as a better MA.

There are exceptions, I know, but the exceptions are so small that there is like a 1,000,000 to 1 chance that anyone on this board trains at these places. (but I know a rash of “my school is different” will follow).

Good luck with your quest.>

Post: Bushi:

My previous post should be taken in the context of all my postings on FA.com and are not directed at those members that I have grown to respect and assume are proficient MAs from our dealings on FA.

*Drinks Corona*

Hang loose.>

Post: MrApollinax:

Bushi, I think you may have posted this over at BS.net:

http://www.jkd-kbh.dk/sbg2.wmv

Pretty much gives you video examples of what everyone here has stated.>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

I really enjoy a few of the mistakes made in this thread.
First, “do” arts are lumped in with traditional arts when they have not existed long enough to be anything but modern arts. Modern arts do not have to be a mix of styles or ignorant of core principles. Traditional arts only treat conditioning as an option NOW, in a world where people are not as dedicated or disciplined to it (could you seriously imagine old school jujutsuka taking fall after fall on straw mats and hard wood floors and then saying, “Toughening up is only an option.”?) Modern arts are not more effective because there is more recent proof of their effectiveness. That’s simply bad reasoning. The arts of the ancient battle field are not outdated because of the difference in weapon technology etc. You don’t think samurai fought in cities? You don’t think knights had to worry about long range attacks from archers or siege engines? Modern arts cannot be claimed to be superior because of recent testing. Many modern arts are never truly tested. However, a good number of traditional arts commit to sparring and tournaments to test the skill of practicioners which will in turn keep the style alive to evolve and remain effective.

Modern arts are typically made by practicioners without the dedication to a school to keep that art alive. BJJ is a direct offshoot of an older style and a natural evolution of it’s principles, so how is it not a traditional style? Krav Maga derives from a number of styles because it’s founder could not keep his hand in one school without stealing from another, it’s only thought of as modern because there is no legitimate lineage to connect it with. Those are just examples, all of the modern martial art styles will reflect this, though, as they are all evolved traditional expressions – and thus not really modern – or bastard spawns of several traditions.

Why one would be considered better than the other, or why one would think they can be combined or whatever the intent of this thread was, is beyond my comprehension of reality. Modern and Traditional are opposites and cannot be combined. Traditions can be kept alive, evolve and remain just as effective if not moreso than the modern drek that people invent out of arrogant dissatisfaction. Modern arts can test all they like and claim to be more effective for it, but nothing stops traditional styles from not doing that either.

Please, no more lapses in logic. I can’t take anymore.>

Post: wuming:

hmm…. I think I definately did a poor job with my previous definitions, thanks to the great counterarguments you guys have been offering.

Right after I posted my last message I realized, “damn that is aweful; that really was not in line with exactly what I was thinking”. I realized that my definitions were way too complex and I tried to make them far too specific. Also, I should have stated that when I was saying MMA that I meant specifically Mixed Martial Arts, not necessarily Modern Martial Arts.

Anyways the main point I was trying to make was that TMA’s and M(mixed)MA’s were designed with different purposes in mind and such their training and principles are going to be designed to fit that purpose. I was not trying to say that one is better than the other. All I was trying to say was there are two different arenas that the two are primarily used for (and this of course is an overgeneralization because we can all think of examples that cross over equally well, but also, a great deal don’t seem to cross over as well). I never said that one is more “deadly” to the other (but I can see how that can be inferred). In response to ninja klown (and again I mean no disrespect at all, I am just trying to further the progression of the argument) I never said

Quote:
“MMA is a just a sport and isn’t good for self-defence, and my art only fails in NHB competition because our techniques are far too deadly to use.”

and furthermore, I did not say either that either art is or is not effective. All I am saying is that they were disigned with two different purposes in mind and this is where the difference lies. I in no way made a claim that one was better than the other but again I can see how this can be inferred. If any of you go back and read my previous posts no where will you see me proposing that one is more effective or better than the other. My main point was that arguments over the effectiveness of each one are irrelevant because they were designed at cross purposes.

1. TMA = primarily designed to protect one’s life; designed before the advent of modern western exercise science

2. MMA = primarily designed to win tournaments; designed after the advent of modern western exersice science

Again there are always exceptions, but I am just basing this off my general knowledge and the initial posts in this topic. Since both arts were designed with cross purposes it would not be correct to propose that TMA’s are ineffective b/c there are times they lose tournaments and it would be as equally incorrect to say that MMA’s are ineffective b/c there are times they fail in real life. Like I mentioned above, one could use a screwdriver to pound in a nail, but one would be much better off pounding in a nail with a hammer. Again, I never said one was better than the other, all I said was they were designed at cross purposes even though there is a great deal of overlap (and sometimes the overlap is hardly noticable). And lastly, the arts were not designed in a vacuum, as all of us obviously agrees to, the training of these arts are comprised of the habits and beliefs of the people at the time and this also creates the cross purposes and differences in the training.

Again thanks for the great argument everyone. I mean no disrespect whatsoever. I really do enjoy these arguments that at least give me some good insight. Thank you all.>

Post: 8LimbsScientist:

Hey I don’t know what happened to my last post…the second paragraph is all mixed up and garbled. When I wrote it originally the sentences were all in a different order.

Anyway, this thread wasn’t meant as a TMA vs. MMA thread, it was meant as a “training in both” type of thread. But I think Klown and Bushi make really good points. Being proficient in pressure point fighting and percussive limb breaks is all well and good, but if you can’t land a punch, there is serious doubt you could land a strike to a targetted sensitive area. If a style is made ineffective because its techniques are outlawed in MMA competition, couldn’t you just add these techniques to an MMA fighters skillset and come out with a more complete martial artist? This is why its good to experience both kinds of training.>

Post: setsu nin to:

I realy dont see any point of starting discousion about which one is better and things like that. In my opinion its same as that we start discousion tennis vs badminton. It all depende on what you whant and for what you need martial arts, so I will just pointed on few things that, in my opinion, I should say here.

In my opinion to continue with some useful disscousion we should first clear some basic terms and difference between them.
We should first found what traditional martial arts are and what mixed martial arts are, also if we have traditional martial arts and mixed martial arts than we have modern martial arts and single or pure martial arts. So we have to finde difference between these terms.

For example Shotokan Karate was put as traditional martial art many times or using full contact in Shotokan competitions belong to traditional Shotokan and no full contact belong to modern Shotokan (sorry 8Limbs I pointed these example here just becouse I first saw it and dont take it wrong I think that you made some realy great points here). Using of full contact in Karate competitions is know as Full Contact Karate or short just Full Contact, it was realy popular in past 80′ for example. It exist still today, Kickboxing was developed from it. No full contact competitions in Shotokan come when Shotokan authoritys decide to make from Shotokan Olimpic sport. But Shotokan is modern martial art and there is not traditional Shotokan.

Also when we are talking about deadly Shotokan strikes we have to discous about two more Japanese terms on which is based striking in Japanese martial arts. First one is Atemijutsu an dother is Kyushojutsu. These are just two diferent approachs to striking. Point of Atemijutsu is way how you will strike and point of Kyushojutsu is target, place on the body where you will strike. In Kyushojutsu you are looking for weak or vulnerable points of opponents body and in Atemijutsu you you look for techniques how you will strike. Kyusho is translated in English as vital points, but actualy Kyusho is based on weak points.

Well thats all for now, I have to go…>

Post: BLACK PANTA:

You are right monkey this was not a thread meant to debate wich is better. It is really me expressing what I’ve encountered and my growth in seeing the effectiveness in both TMA and MMA. I’ve used KF in my BJJ and have been successful, I’ve also used BJJ in my KF training and have been successful. My point there is no need on either sides of the fence to look over and say their lawn is filthy when both lawns are beautifully cared for and maintained. It’s just one neighbour uses a different approach to keeping his lawn well maintained

Yeah I’m excited, summer is on it’s way baby.>

Post: 8LimbsScientist:

I think we should look at the neighbors lawn and say, “Damn, my grass is in good shape, but that guy across the fence sure does have an interesting way of fertilizing his bushes…maybe I should try that out and make my lawn even better…”>

Post: BLACK PANTA:

you can look at it that way indeed. But like the saying goes “if it aint broke, why fix it”>

Post: Gong||Jau:

This doesn’t apply directly to the TMA vs. MMA argument, but somewhere in our garage there’s an old phone, the kind where you crank it and then hold the little horn to your ear while talking into the main part. It’s not broken as far as I know, but I sure as hell wouldn’t want to have to use it to call someone. I’m pretty sure I still have a Walkman somewhere as well, and while I don’t think it ever broke I don’t use it either. When something obviously superior presents itself, you integrate it into your life as soon as it’s realistic (the cost becomes reasonable and the new technology is widely available). The reason I wouldn’t apply this directly to TMA vs. MMA is because MMA is not obviously superior, and I also think that TMA is something of a misnomer, since I know of very few schools that actually uphold a martial tradition instead of just claiming one.>

Post: zefff:

I just read back the thread and my post and it is a bit wierd. it seems I may have accidentally said TMA = unlimited and MMA = limited. I did not mean that. What I meant was, it doesnt matter what you do the only differences between MA practice or any practice is how you limit your thinking, so they either can be limited or unlimited in its creativity and flexibility.

What I was trying to say was I believe all MA are MMA because they have to be exposed to the world to be proved effective. A TMA is a dead idea. An exponent has to be flexible enough to change his approach to every threat. Thats why I dont agree with TMA vs MMA but limited vs unlimited thoughts. Its what I believe but making it work is not easy. For me its kind of like convincing my neighbour that his lawn is actually my lawn.>

Share.

About Author