UFC versus Pure Combat

[TraditionalDan]

I don't think this has anything to do with TMA vs MMA, the simple fact is most TMA classes, and MMA classes neglect many important aspects of self defence.

Both MMA and TMA on thier own have thier weaknesses on the street, and experience on the street is also a big factor. I also believe there is difference between learning to defend youself as a bouncer, security guard or police, than as a person. I have experience of this, as I am sure many others do.

But you cannot condemn a person to MMA or TMA only, as either may be diversified in thier training. The simple fact is, if you just say 'here I am, a martial artist, I want to gear my training 100% to learning and researching self defence.' Then considering yourself a TMA or a MMA goes out the window.

[tallgeese]

I agree with most everything you're saying TradDan. There are a couple of things to point out in regard to the argument that have less to do with the movments taught and more to do with the methodology applied.

I've found that most mma clubs tend to have a higher level of general preparedness for conflict that your average tma school (note: I said most ). The type of training and drilling tends to lend itself to mental conditioning for contact closer to those found in actual confrontations.

Secondly, most mma'ers are more ready mentally to be hit than most tma'ers. This again goes back to the way that they train.

There are several advantages that tma has a hold on. One of course is movements that are illegal and therefore not practiced often in an mma envornment. However, I feel that due to the way that mmaers tend to train, they are more ready to actually utilize damaging movements than are tma people.

The lesson I feel here is what you hinted at in regard to simply being ready to defend one's self with out the headache of systemic titles. Tma'ers need to take those weapons they have and train them more like mma'ers train theirs. Again, not technique, but training methods I'm talking about here.

[bushido_man96]

I also believe there is difference between learning to defend youself as a bouncer, security guard or police, than as a person. I have experience of this, as I am sure many others do.

This is a very good point that you bring up. As a civilian, I have a lot more self-defense options (like striking the face, etc.) than I do when I have to restrain someone in the jail. In the jail, I am restricted to holds and restraints, and usually have the advantage of having assistance. However, the situation has to be just right for me to be justified in actually striking an inmate.

I've found that most mma clubs tend to have a higher level of general preparedness for conflict that your average tma school (note: I said most ). The type of training and drilling tends to lend itself to mental conditioning for contact closer to those found in actual confrontations.

Secondly, most mma'ers are more ready mentally to be hit than most tma'ers. This again goes back to the way that they train.

Again, not technique, but training methods I'm talking about here.

These are good points about MMA's training methodology. The same things go with Boxing and Thai Boxing as well. A similar advantage can be found in Wrestling, Judo, and BJJ, where in these styles the practitioners are constantly working against a resisting, dynamic opponent as opposed to a cooperative one.

[bushido_man96]

MMA_Jim, that was a good post. There are a few things that I would disagree with, but for the most part, you bring a lot of good points to light.

MMA IS NOT A STYLE. As such, consider our mma fighter to be trained in whatever you like to imagine him being trained in- hes a karate fighter, a tkd'er, a judoka, or a kung fu expert. But bottom line is he fights.

This statement really brings out a lot. There are a lot of MMA fighters out there who have/do study other "traditional" styles, like in your scenario. In the end, by getting into competing in MMA matches, what they really end up altering is like tallgeese mentions; their training methodologies.

I have a question for you, though. Would you consider the fact that perhaps the TMAer that doesn't compete in MMA, but does compete regularly in his style's type of tournament competition, as willing to test his style as the MMAer does?

Edited July 7, 2008 by bushido_man96

[TraditionalDan]

tallgeese nicely introduces a point that I may not have had time to put across in my previous post.

I completely agree with what you say.

Many MMA students are far more prepared for combat than many TMA students, and would therefore fare better than your average TMA student.

But as you say, where the TMA student has an advantage is some of the techniques being taught. Many of which are illegal for the ring/cage.

I believe it is good to strike a balance between the two.

[tallgeese]

I'll throw out an answer to your question bushio man, I can't speak for MMA Jim of course, but it's too good of a question to not respond to.

I think how one decides to test himself and his art is largely in his hands. What would you feel most tested your knowledge? To one heavily into the philosophical side of things, i t may be to have suce an awareness to never have to fight. To others, it may be to find the most realistic simulation of fighting you could and see how you do. Still others may want to find out how their art specific skill compare to others doing the same thing.

Each of these is a valid "test" of one's self in it's own way. At the core, it's about why you do the art and how much you derive from external feedback and competition.

I don't think it's mandantory for any ma'er to compete, in anything. That being said, I loved competition but that's just my thing.

What I do think is mandantory in combative training, is hard, realistic sparring and simulations. These should uses simple, workable movements and you should be able to perform them even from negitive positions and starting postures. Not every day or every session, but this type of training goes along way to understanding the realities of fighitng contact and developing a martial mindset.

[bushido_man96]

Great answer, tallgeese.

Please don't think the question just goes to MMA_Jim, either....I welcome anyone's response!

[MMA_Jim]

MMA_Jim

I have a question for you, though. Would you consider the fact that perhaps the TMAer that doesn't compete in MMA, but does compete regularly in his style's type of tournament competition, as willing to test his style as the MMAer does?

No, I wouldnt, and let me explain why.

Many TMA's are filled with numerous rules, some of which were instilled for combative nature, but many which have been changed for the protection of the participants.

As I said before, MMA is not a style, its a ruleset. The fact that many traditional styles did extremely poorly led to the distinguishment of MMA guys on one side, and TMA'ers (karate, TKD, Kung Fu, what have you) on the other.

Now, all styles of fighting are NOT equal. They all serve a purpose, and modern day unarmed combat is not what most of them were derived for. As such, you become limited in the rules as to what you can do.

In karate you can only kick and punch

In boxing you can only punch.

In Judo you can only throw and briefly wrestle on the ground with submissions

In wrestling you can only wrestle, with no submissions or strikes allowed.

So now what if your opponent doesnt want to play your game? What if I dont want to wrestle a wrestler, or box with a boxer? How effective is his style of fighting if we takes the rules away hes so accustomed to fighting under? THAT is what MMA is all about. Every style of fighting is going to have champions that claim to be the best. Let them fight the champions of other styles and see who prevails.

The biggest difference I see between stepping into the cage and being in a competition, is that people are genuinely trying to hurt you in the cage. It truely is a unique feeling and all fighters feel the pre-fight jitters. Many cant handle it and as a result refuse to do it. Rather than giving those that step up to fight their due credit, a great many try everything they can to discredit them and take away what they are- the worlds best hand to hand fighters.

[bushido_man96]

Good statement, Jim. You make your point well. However, MMA, at its roots, is a competition as well as the other styles: Olympic TKD, Boxing, and Wrestling. So in the end, are we just looking at a bunch of rule sets as opposed to styles? I don't believe so; in fact, I do view MMA as a style, as opposed to a rule set, but that is just my opinion.

[tallgeese]

I see Jim's point and I really do think that in the early days that was entirly true. It was merely a rules set.

I think that right now, were in a transitionary period were it is developing into it's own art as bushido man stated. It will be interesting to see where it comes out. I think in 10 years or so, it will be clearly definded as it's own system.

Anytime a systematic fighting proctice functions under a specific set of rules, for long enough, it begins to become it's own animal. Movements are dropped from the cirriculum that don't work within the ruleset it's functioning under. Others are added to capitalize on the rules. This becomes kind of a standard for the "system" if you will.

MMA has already come into it's own in regard to training methodology, conditionng, and event specific tactics. This will only continue. It is really not unlike (nor is it entirely like, I understnad that) the process by which Funikoshi brought modern karate into being. Different skills, of course. But the process of change and additions of sparring and such that Funikoshi began teaching seemed to do much the same to the karate world as mma has done for the ma world in general.

System gets a bad rap from lots of circles, including one's i've been party to over the years. It can become a constraining factor in learning new skills and it does add an artifical element to an entirely chaotic event (unarmed combat). However, we have to look at "system" for what it really should be, nothing more than a systemized method of teaching one to fight. A system should grow with the addition of new knowledge to it's practitioners, and this is where so many have gone wrong over the years, IMO. But at it's core, it's merely about an organized pattern of training.

Under this criteria, mma has certainly come a long way during it's short lifespan. Not only is the training higly "systemized" but is also very effective for producing combatants quickly with a moderate level of skill. As you can see, under this viewpoint, becomeing a "system" is not a bad thing.

So is it an art? Maybe not yet. But it's certainly showing the signs of becoming one.