AndrewGreen

No, they are different. Both a cross and a reverse punch involve punching straight forward, but that is where the similarity ends. Weight, posture, power, angle, etc. All different.

Submission wrestling is basically a generic term for, big surprise, wrestling for submisson BJJ generally wears the kimono (not always) and often includes desfences against strikes, basic self-defence, striking, etc (again not always) But it has a lineage back to Brazil and the Gracie family. Both have a few different sport formats, which differ from each other. BJJ seems to reward position more. BJJ tends to give a slower, tighter match as in its sport format a Kimono is worn which provides many habdles to prevent escapes and positional advances. Where Sub wrestiling doesn't wear one and it is harder to keep someone still making it a little looser and more explosive. But you can do submission wrestling and still be doing BJJ. Most of the techniques and training methods are the basically the same (except for ones that rely on the gi)

Pick one, it will make your life easier. Crosstraining only works if the two styles don't overlap much. A striking art and a grappling art for example. Or if the arts are similar, they do not have a "proper technique", it is simply whatever works... But to try and do two seperate "styles" that do the same things differently will likely slow your progress in both, not speed it up.

TMA cannot teach you to fight to the same level as MMA, The traditional teaching and training methods don't do that. This is what I disagree with, MMA can and does do those as well. I don't believe you do. MMA does too, more important perhaps because a lack of it is a serious safety risk. Again this is neccessary in MMA to the full extent that I believe a Martial Arts teacher should teach too. Sportsmanship is a part of any well coached sport. Morals are something which different people have different views on. Which set of morals should be taught? That is the job of parents, preachers & counslers, not sports coaches. Which serves what purpose? Can be trained within a MMA enviornment. I do it, so do many others. MMA has a history too, Do you think MMA fighters don't learn about the history of their style? but how is that relevant? Better of without them... Again MMA does these, and you have admitted it does these better. No, they don't. How about this one. One person learns to paint by copying the works and style of one artist, never deviating from that style. He learns the history, the techniques, the culture of the time, etc. The other learns the techniques of a bunch of different artists and is encouraged to develop his own style and be creative. He creates his own style based on what suites him and his personallity/culture. Who gets the most benefit? The one who is bound by the style of someone else and can never exceed that. He is trying to use a style which is not his, trying to be someone he is not. Whatever he paints is someone elses, everything he does is second hand. The second is bound by no one, he develops a style which is his, his paintings are his own, he is creative and explores different techniques and different approaches used by many different painters. Neither method is "wrong", but I'd rather be the second one and you can't tell me they get you to the same place in the end.

Longer does not always mean better, it just means better at a further distance, in close a 9 ft staff is near useless and that is where the guy with the nunchaku will be trying to get.

No, technique plays a part as well. But training methods dictate technique, if you where to start sparring with your karate strikes in a Muay Thai environment (gloves & contact) it would start looking more and more like Muay Thai. Explain how traditional arts achieve this and MMA doesn't. Both teach you to fight, one just does a better job then the other. Through that other things come out, I think all the other stuff that TMA claims is the goal can be achieved better through MMA because it is much more "real" then TMA. But what is the goal? And how is that different from MMA? Why can't someone train for the same goals you have, but do it through MMA and get far better self-defence skills? I disagree with the comparisson. MMA can achieve all of the Self-development stuff, and IMO can do that better, plus it gives you better fighting skills... No, both train to fight and gain other benefits through that. What door? Yes, they are. It is not a matter of styles, but individuals. A person can train either way for the exact same goals. Whether it is fighting, self-defence, competition, enjoyment, character development, social aspects, etc. MMA can do all of those just as well, and sometimes better. Fun & enjoyment is individual, some people enjoy the Traditional aspects, be that kata, culture, environment or whatever. For them TMA is better, but it is not good for fighting. I do agree with the basic premise of the initial post: Training MMA in the right way can make you a far better fighter far faster then the traditional techniques and methods. But who cares, martial arts should be done primarily for fun. Tae Bo & Tai Chi won't make you a great fighter, but they will make you healthier and can be quiet enjoyable, that is what counts. Karate / TKD /etc are somewhere in the middle.

No, if you train and fight using a boxing base, Karate training will hold you back in that. The boxing also will hold back your karate. Train one way, not two or more ways. That doesn't mean don't crosstrain, but if you do make sure they are compatible or it can do more harm then good.

Pretty similar, but more kicks and less punches. Basic history: http://www.indiana.edu/~iutkd/history/tkdhist.html

Can you explain this with examples please?

I suggest you do some research into this outside of your schools handouts. I have done a fair amount of research into the history of pankration and the information you have is inaccurate based on all of the primary and secondary sources I came across. It was determined by submission, In fact I remember reading one account of a match where the loser submitted and the victor collapsed dead on top of him. Several accounts state that fighters competing in both would request pankration be held first so that they would still be in good enough shape to fight in the other. The Greeks are the ones that really started organized sport, in a sense we could say that ALL western sport originated with the Greeks. Boxing did, but do Marquis of Queensberry fighters do the same things that Greek boxers did? Not even close. I can't recall ever reading anything like that. Pankration, as far as I know, survived until the Roman empire. See above. Gladiators matches where often determined by submission as well, not death. It was not the same time, Gladiator games where Roman, Pankration Greek. Pankration came long before Gladiator combat. I'd say the reverse is true.

Then you haven't actually seen BJJ done by anyone with any skill.

Depends on tactics and ability. Bo has a longer reach. Nunchaku sucks to block with. Bo can be grabbed with the free hand. But why not just go spar them instead of talking about it? I give an edge to the bo, based off of many sparring sessions. I would also recomend against holding the bo in thirds...

Couple of things: Boxing was considered more dangerous then Pankration in the early olympics. It was the Romans that got rid of it. Originally it had nothing to do with Muay Thai. It was basically NHB fighting, there are many vases and other artifacts whic depict it but its impossible to know what they actually did. Boxing did not contain kicks, that was unique to pankration. Victory was determined by submission. It is not practiced as it was then, and there is really no reason why it should. No safety equipment, competing naked & oiled, groin grabbing and finger breaking allowed.... That wouldn't go over well...

Most boxer/kickboxers and coaches will tell you to stick to one stance. For 99% of people focusing on one will make you a better fighter then trying to do both. If you are right handed this generally means left foot forward for striking arts.

I didn't say one was better then the other. But I will say that on average grapplers are more familiar with stopping a striker then strikers are with stopping a grappler.

Then you've never fought a grappler. IF a guy is mounted on you and you do that he will arm bar you if he knows anything about grappling. But this wan't always illegal in the UFC and it isn't in other events. He has to recover from his sprawl and you have to recover from your shot. If you miss your shoot, he is also a grappler, or you are not a good one. NO ONE DID!!!! In order to fight in MMA you have to be able to strike, BUT you also have to be able to grapple. You need both, without both you will loose. I will say without both you are missing something. If you think grabbing the throat will help you are missing something, if you don't spar with limited rules you are missing something. That doesn't mean what you are doing is wrong, its just not fighting. Shotokan is great, its fun, relaxing, promotes health, relieves stress, whatever. But it is not about fighting, MMA is fighting. The sport format is as close to real fighting as we can get in a competition setting. But it is not limited to the sport format, and certainely not to the sport format of the UFC. The Dog Brothers are MMA, they use weapons, weapons aren't allowed in the UFC though. Multiple attackers can be trained in MMA, but not in competition. Should we judge Shotokan strictly by WKF sparring competition?

RJJ is a far higher level athlete then Royce Gracie. Rules make the fight, in a no rules environment is the guy that knows how to nulify the other guys techniques that will win. A grappler who trains to take strikers down will most likely beat a striker with little or no grappling. But the skill level of the individuals in their respective arts makes a BIG difference too. Lots, everything. No, it favours the guy on top. Maurice Smith Vitor BELFORT If you are going to cite examples its best to actually get the names right.

Whether you want to or not it can end up there. Besides he won't always have friends and you won't always be alone... How does shotokan simulate this in a more realistic way? Like where? Would you rather get slammed on the mat or on a hard surface? This favours the guy being taken down, not the guy doing the takedown. Standups for lack of action is a big one. Almost all the rules do one of two things: Safety - they need to keep the sport legal or Action - They need an audience, striking is more entertaining. NO ONE is claiming UFC is a "real" fight in the sense you mean, it is a real fight, but with rules as a sport. It is however the closest simulation to a real fight that we can do safely and legally right now.

Umm... "Marcus" Smith... Ok, why? How much do top boxers make? How about top UFC fighters? How many people box? How many fight in MMA? RJJ vs Gracie in sport JJ? Only way to let both do their thing is MMA or Vale Tudo. Padded floor - better for the guy that gets thrown and ends up on the bottom... Oh wait, thats the striker...

Been done, don't really do much unless you are kicking a straight leg with weight on it at the right angle. No trained person would ever stand like this though. Good luck, the chin is a difficult taget to land a solid punch on, and it is in front of the throat protecting it... Mostly annoying. If you are in a loosing situation in a real fight dirty tactics will likely just give you a few extra days in bed since you just really pissed off a guy who was already beating you up. Actually we did, they came, they got beat and they stopped coming. Grappling will happen if it is allowed, even if it is just two strikers. As soon as one guy starts taking hits he will (or at least should) clinch for safety. If you don't know how to deal with that and he does you are in trouble. A "true" striker would need to know how to strike in a clinch and get out of a clinch, which means he has to train in the clinch. He would need to know how to avoid and counter takedowns, so he would have to train with takedowns and train in how to do them. He would have to know how to avoid submissions, escape bad positions and get back to his feet, which means training on the ground. So for a striker to be successful he needs to know how to grapple so that he can deal with grappling.

Work your escapes and controls, then worry about submissions. royharris.com has some good stuff explained really well. There are some very good documents and videos

No, they are incompatible if you are doing karate in a "traditional" way. The posture is different, the defencive structure is different, the kicks are thrown differently and the punches are thrown differently. If you can keep the skills seperate you can do both, but they are not compatible.

The original "No rules, no time limits" favoured grapplers. The rules tend to favour strikers. I'd say ground and pound and standup striking is most favoured by UFC rules and environment. The rule is no kicks when a man is down, not no kicking a downed opponent. So you can't kick from guard either. Heel kicks to kidneys. kicking upward to the face. But this rule is not in all events, Pride allows them, so does UCC from what I've seen. Also most of these rules where not present in the first UFC's, nor the Vale Tudo matches in Brazil prior to the UFC. There where no gloves and no restrictions except biting and eye gouging. So would be able to best use these tactics where they allowed? The better fighter. UFC is not a real fight, but it is as close as we can get for a sanctioned sport. The training methods and techniques of MMA are not only the best for the ring/cage, but for the street as well.

First, "Dragon" was a movie, not history if that is what you watched. The fight was at his school and there is some disagreement as to whether anyone actually "won"

A fencing club perhaps?