AndrewGreen

Something relevant: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html

It does its job, and it is martial arts based. Billy Blanks has gotten awards for contributions to martial arts as a result of it. Tae bo is as much a martial art as many other things labelled "Martial arts".

Don't expect to make a living at it, there is not a lot of money in it for anyone but the very top guys.

No offence, but that is a really dumb demo... Get a boxer to punch like a boxer and a karate guy to punch like a karate guy. Better yet a whole bunch of each. I could do the same demo and show which ever one I wanted to was more powerfull. Doesn't prove a thing. And power isn't everything. The jab is the most common punch in boxing, and this is not because of its knockout power. Boxers are probably the best punchers in the world. Why? That is all that they do, they train to knock people out with punches. If any other method of punching could do that better they would adopt it. So there is a lot of money in it for you if you start teaching this method to pro boxers...

Have you actually read my posts?

Some of this, some of that.

Treebranch if you really did use the same training methods as MMA you would use the same techniques, you would be doing MMA regardless of what you call it. So if you are doing MMA what are you arguing against? But then again what you are doing is not really "Traditional" if you are using the term in the way most people mean it. However I have a hard time believing you are, because if you where you wouldn't be arguing this.

Pick a school not a style...

So one is either superior in either way or both are equal....? I think you often mistake "believing there is a better way" with "disrespect". TMA has its strengths, so does MMA. MMA is superior for teaching a person to fight effectively. Tae Bo is great, but not because it teaches functional self-defence skills.

And you can't fight either if you never actually do fight either. Do you really believe that MMA only trains with people their own weight? Thats silly, MMA trains against everyone, any weight. Once again you are only considering the sport format, not the Training methos as a whole. Yes I have, a few times. Some do, some don't. Weapons are a big part of my training, and they are trained in a sport format. So do it with all, just don't use a real sword... which is not really a practical weapon anyway is it? No they aren't. If they where why would you be getting so upset about me saying MMA training methods are superior? So what, have you? No? Then how can you be sure YOU can do it. I don't care what he could do, I care what I can do. No they aren't.

Go back and read yours, and then mine. I will respond in kind. If I want battlefield tactics I will join the army, actually been there done that. Has nothing to do with what we call "martial arts" Again, battlefield is not hand to hand or self-defence. Very different environemt, very different goals. Very different weapons. No, they don't. The do there job the best way they can. They train using the most current and effective methods. No military unit would go into battle and win based on "tradtitional" training. There is no such thing. My goal is to learn a Combat Effective MA and that is what I'm doing. The why bring feudal battlefields into this? Military training is very different from civilian training. Are you planning on going to war with a sword? So go to one that teaches Mixed martial arts, going to three different places to learn three different things is a bad idea, they won't interlink. Boxing changes with kicks, it changes with clinching, it changes with takedowns. Go somewhere that integrats them right from the beginning. No I didn't, please reread. I do one, mine. And it incorporates all ranges as well as weapons (also in all ranges) I have no desire to learn seperate arts, just one that covers everything I want. No disrespect at all, read what I wrote. Is it disrespectful to say Newton has been improved upon? I said we have better methods available to us now, that is not disrespectful. You are just rather defensive about it. Yes. Irrelevant. Can you name one scientist more prolific then Aristotle? Are todays scientists better educated? History is important, it show us where we've been. I like reading history, but it is not my source for information on anything apart from history. Art has advanced, but it has also changed a lot. We could do a lot better then the pyramids now, that doesn't make them less impressive. Realism painting is somewhat outdated, we have cameras. Most artists don't do that anymore so they won't be as skilled at it. Art forms get outdated and go out of style, the best examples of them will come from when they where in there prime. Yes. Yes, but they have always been around. The Greeks likely used some forms of performance enhancing drugs as well. But the human body and mind, sorry to say has not. Untrained, yes. We do have a better understanding of the body and how it can be trained. Sure, for sport purposes. Remember those Greeks? Reread what I have posted, you are arguing against only the sport format, do you not think that Mixed martial arts based schools teach and train foul tactics as well? This is a really silly comparisson. Military training IS NOT WHERE TO LOOK for non-military. Ask anyone who has been in the army about how much relevance their training has to do with civilian self-defence. Almost none, if any. Have you spent any time training in combat sports? I have spent a lot of time training in traditional arts, who is being biased? Combat is for the military, it is irrelevant for anyone outside of that except military historians. But guess what, a lot of the training takes the form of.... SPORT! Why? Because it is a more effective training method.

I think that the hype of MMA is sort of old, but done in a new way. It is sparring, that is what is at the core of it. Using sparring as a testing ground to learn from and improve in. What MMA does differently then what has been done in Martial arts schools is incorporate more elements. It alows wrestling, it alows striking, it alows submissions. Where as Martial arts, in the western world, where not doing that. This is not new, the Greeks where doing it long before the UFC came into place. But it is only recently that it has become "mainstream". There will be more developments, there have been a few since the early UFC's. But the idea of sparring as a testing ground is not new and probably will not go away. What will change is the techniques znd drills that are used. This is why I consider MMA a training method, not a style. The idea is to use sparring to test out things and develop new things no matter what those things are, but to avoid restricting which things are allowed. Weapons can be trained this way, multiple attackers can be trained this way, eye gouges and other foul tactics can be trained this way (with proper equipment) The other principle is to use a variety of different sparring methods and objectives that interlink for best benefits. So I can train boxing skills, kickboxing skills, wrestling skills, submission skills, etc. Using proper equipment, and I can do this by isolating one area or integrating any number of them. Wearing boxing equipment Submission work is hard, wearing no gloves boxing is too dangerous. I can do both seperate, and I can do both together using MMA gloves and headgear with a mask. And yes you can defend yourself using wing chun, but not against everyone, same with MMA. But training MMA will allow you to do so against more then Wing Chun. TMA are best for when everything goes right. But when things start going wrong MMA has a better chance of getting you out of that hole. I don't train for self-defence anymore, don't see the point. But if I ever needed to defend myself my first choice would be a rather aikidoish type of redirect and pin outcome. But if that opportunity doesn't come up I'd probably be very glad I got some MMA type skills as well. That is my opinion. TMA is a better option, but MMA is higher percentage. MMA type techniques will work more often against more people. But if I get the opportunity to apply a standing wrist lock and end it I'll take it.

Depending on what you are doing and how you are doing it could never become traditional, does any other sport become traditional? Do all of a sudden a sports team decide to name their style and stick to it? No, they have goals and objectives and pursue the best path to those goals and objectives based on what is available to them. None, all, your own. No styles, just people Yes, but it is SOMEONE ELSES style, someone very different from me in a different time and a different place with different abilities, different equipment and different information available to them. Sure, in combat sports. If it is evolving it is no longer a "Style" in the traditional sense, at least not if it evolving on an individual level. If there is a style head who makes changes thats fine for him, but he is not me, and he is not you. Read above. Traditional styles DO have a place, I do both. I have also studied history, I enjoyed it, but I'm not going to rely on Aristotles version of science for anything now. Aristotle was brilliant, he made huge advances, where he alive today he would have very different views and opinions then he did then. Can you do stuff with Aristotles science? Yes, of course. It does work, to an extent. But we have better things available to us now, if it is for practical application Aristotles version of science is not the best option.

I don't get it, you can't argue with me so you try to attack me on a personal level, do you think that will work? I can do it too if that is the case: Ninja-boy, The last of the ancient clan of super-inivincible-ninja-masters said: Things change, you got that. We go t better equipment, more people and more information. If your styles master had all that we have today he could have done a lot better too. But he didn't, we do and we can do better. I do see value in tradtional arts, I still practice and teach them, but I also practice and teach through MMA as well. I am not a competitior, have no desire to be one right now (Why are you back to trying to attack me and not what I say? Are you a member of a secret ninja clan? No? Then why must I be a top contender?) All records will get broken, and they all do as training methods and technology gets better. The only ones that might not are based on performance against others.

Mind if I ask why? It means different things to different people.

Forget soccer, it is impossible to compare players of the past to players of the present. Take a sport which can be measured and compare scores now to scores 20, 50 or 100 years ago. Race times, jump distances, jump heights, etc. Do a little research and you will find a big difference in the abilities then compared to the abilities now. Why? Sports advance, just like every thing else in the world. Martial arts are no different. Now we have a lot more people training, a lot more people teaching, a lot more information available, research from sports science, etc. Even if we only had half the talent, we should be able to do better. TMA are effective to a degree for some things, but if effectiveness is the only concern they are not the best option. No "style" is, you need to create your own style. Ok, back to the soccer. Take Pele, you say he was the greatest so we'll assume he was. So lets have all soccer players immitate him, his training methods, his moves, his strategy. Will that turn out better soccer players? No, its silly But if you want to play ninja and do what you believe secret ninja clans did, go for it.

Can they make the students tap? Can they teach the students to make others tap? If it is a competitive school how do they place? If they use the name Gracie Juijitsu then yes, they should be certified by a Gracie. But if you are a better instructor then that is what counts, not who has the most certificates. If they are better and have none, they are still better.

Reread what I said. I didn't say that they couldn't be used, I said they weren't that effective in a fight. Police is a different issue, they are not fighting, they are controlling and would usually have back up. Good for you. I think you will find that a lot of MMA practitioners have TMA experience, but the other way around is a lot less common. I do and teach both, and I recognize the limitations and strengths of each. That is a very bad reason to do something. After 900 years there should be improvement, if what you do is 900 years old it is outdated. Or do you also believe Aristotle was right and modern science is wrong about most things?

Reread what I said. I didn't say that they couldn't be used, I said they weren't that effective in a fight. Police is a different issue, they are not fighting, they are controlling and would usually have back up. Good for you. I think you will find that a lot of MMA practitioners have TMA experience, but the other way around is a lot less common. I do and teach both, and I recognize the limitations and strengths of each. That is a very bad reason to do something. After 900 years there should be improvement, if what you do is 900 years old it is outdated. Or do you also believe Aristotle was right and modern science is wrong about most things?

Dpends on what sort of competition and what you are training in. No it is a training method and a sport format. Many schools teach Mixed martial arts as one thing. Right, but there are best training methods for certain things. MMA is the best training method for fighting. You can train weapons and multiple attackers with this method as well, you do not always have to follow the rules of the sport format. And they will use the same training methods. Limited rules sparring allowing all ranges and developing from there. There are other skills, such as standing locks and controls, which have some value that cannot be trained in this method. That is because they are not effective in fighting. They can be used to control someone who is unco-operative, or to prevent a fight before it starts. But once there is a fight going these will not work very well. If it where effective it would be used in Pride or the UFC as those fighters use whatever is effective. Apart from things which are outside the sport format such as multiple attackers and weapons, however these are still best trained the same way. Stop thinking "styles" and start thinking "training methods", styles are defined by there training methods. As some training methods are better then others some styles will be better then others. Traditional styles often get held back because they are defined by training methods which are outdated.

How about the other side, people who use someone elses name to boast themselves? Paper trails are irrelevant if you can't perform on the mat.

Crosstraining is not the best way to do it, a better way would be to do striking and grappling together, right from the start instead of doing them seperate.

Nope, comes down to the training method, and the training method will dictate the techniques. Styles are usually defined largely based on there training methods. Depending on what you want to do some training methods are good, some are better and some are counter productive. Saying that all are equal is nonsense.

Get a heavy bag

Ecerybody has a differbt version of sai history. In Okinawa it was a policing weapon, not a samurai fighting one. Most likely it came through China from Indonesia where it is called a tjabang