There is no Best Martial Art

[WC-Strayder]

See what you mean. When I started in Wing Chun for about a year ago they said that it was NOT usual to use focus mitts, punch bags and other "modern" equipment and defiantly not any sparring in wing chun training, so I quess that style is evolving a little too!. I don't know all in wing chun sullabus, but as far as I had seen it, it has more than enough for me to defend my self with and for my fittness and health and that is why I do it. I think it is a lot of fun and it give me, compared to a training gum, something in return... Good self defence!.

[metamorph]

Ok no I did not realize you ment knife vs knife because I don't carry a knife 24/7 and the 1 I do carry is a flding Buck knife so it wouldnt be useful in a fight because I could not unfold it fast enough. When I was talking about training for combat I ment hend to hand so dont bring fencing into this. WC-Strayder MMA is not even mainstream outside of Japan so no it hasn't started to rub off. I never said traditional MA's are useless but most traditional MA's are not taught as they were in there traditional sense (example judo). I am not saying if it isn't in MMA compatition it is useless but if it is great why isn't it used in compatition (hand to hand arts)?. If you remember back in UFC 1-5 we did see alot of MA's get there butt kicked though and then there was Joe Son but thats a whole other issue. The only point I am trying to make is that 1 MA is less then the greater sums of all MA's. Even the MA's with standup and grappling were created by mixing MA's togather. As for saying MMA compatition is not the closeest thing to real fighting you can get (hand to hand) you are wrong because anything more would be against the law. Why is a TMA a better option when you can train a TMA with a newer style and know both?

[WC-Strayder]

I guess I got what I need in Wing Chun!. The choise I had WAS a health studio or Wing Chun training and I'm very glad I made that choise, coz, like I said, it gives me something back. So why should I bother taking another style?. I meen, I'm 35 years old and for me it is mush better to stick with only one style and be really good in that than be a sucker in two styles or more, wouldn't you agree with that?. I do not do MA for a livin (thanks for that, else I be pretty broke by now!!!), but for the fun of it, to get in shape with it and, offcause, to kick some butt's if I need to.

 

So why should I take more?.

[Scandinavian]

Yes what has mostly changed in past centuries are the methods of getting fit, getting flexible and reaction training. Actually every training method that is involved in martial arts has evolved. Or it has become more fun oriented, instructors do not hit you with a bamboo stick to tear the last drop out from you, even than it would be very effective even today. In short, you can get the same stuff in lesser time. Many traditional martial arts, including mine, have agressively incorporated the modernized training methods. Ie. we do the stretching the best way possible, not the way as it can be read from some ancient cave paintings. There is nothing technically wrong in the TKD kicks or punches, so they remain the same. More "soft" defence techniques are being teached, since pure killing techniques can bee too harsh to fit in many situations.

 

No, we do not study groundwork, but hey, more time for studying kicking and punching! Yes, i could do the same in MMA school, very likely more effectively, as the time spent on some traditional forms would be replaced with sparring or doing pushups. But this does not nullify my current efforts, as the difference aint that dramatical. Its big enough difference to show up in an MMA ring, but far too little to make a difference in the streets. In street you dont have to be so versatile, the opponents that you will very likely to face will be very poorly skilled. Now im talking about a street of modern McDonalds country, not some ghetto in Brazil.

[JerryLove]

I dont think training in knife defence matters. Do you honestly think that practicing knife defence for 20 minutes every class or 2 a couple of times a week is really going to help against an oponant who has the intension of killing you?

Do you think it will hurt my chances?

 

Unskilled people survvie knife attacks... what is the effeect of training? Do you really believe it has no effect? Perhaps you are poorly trained.

 

Besides, as I mentioned, my example was knife-on-kinfe. If you are ever down here, I welcome you to come in, grab a marker, and try your luck.

I think he's talking about Dogmatic Styles of Martial Arts, which not all of them are. I'm studying Budo Taijutsu and the training methods are sound, and change is welcome. If you don't change you become extinct. Instinct is stressed very highly in this Style, not Kata collecting.

Unfortunatley, few people are clear on what they are referring to with the terminology. I think we all agree that learning for reasons of Dogma is wrong. But to say that anyone not in a "MMA" school is in a dogmatic art is a straw-man logical fallacy.

We did knife defence in judo when i took it and it was really gay, maybe how you did it is different but our way would never work.

Silat (my art) is a knife art. We learn them offensively. We defend against people sparring with them (or rather safer counterparts) and trying to win.

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?

Large pool to pull from, better adn more widespread medicine and nutrition, subtle improvements in training methods, and better steroids.

 

Now tell me how substantially running itself has changed? Tell me how much better the average casual runer is than the casual runner of old.

TMA are effective to a degree for some things, but if effectiveness is the only concern they are not the best option.

We are back to poorly defined terms.

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.

 

Some were, and still are.

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)

I do disagree here. It can be trained this way, but I think you loose more than you gain using randori as a training ground for things you can't really practice well... again I refer you to the "sparring methodologies" thread.

When I was talking about training for combat I ment hend to hand so dont bring fencing into this.

So you are restricting to fights with no epees, and no guns, and no knives, and no bar-stools? I think I see why we disagree.

I never said traditional MA's are useless but most traditional MA's are not taught as they were in there traditional sense (example judo).

Judo is a modern art invented to be PE for school-children... You seem ignorant as to the subject at hand

If you remember back in UFC 1-5 we did see alot of MA's get there butt kicked though and then there was Joe Son but thats a whole other issue.

 

Yes, the UFCs can teach us a lot. They teach us about the dangers of unrealistic training, and the dangers of exploitable holes, and the fallacy of believing you can always make the fight you want (remain standing for example). They are great tools and taught the MA community a lot. Unfortunately, one blindness seems to have been replaced with another

The only point I am trying to make is that 1 MA is less then the greater sums of all MA's. Even the MA's with standup and grappling were created by mixing MA's togather.

And you make my point for me. If cross-training in A and B is better than either, and I make C (whcih is cross-training between A and B), how do you improve on C by cross-training? It's redundant.

As for saying MMA compatition is not the closeest thing to real fighting you can get (hand to hand) you are wrong because anything more would be against the law.

It's the closest legal option, it's however, not the best training tool. It creates its own set of false beliefs.

Why is a TMA a better option when you can train a TMA with a newer style and know both?

 

Why is anything not MMA neccessairily TMA? Why is anythong not MMA neccessairily dogmatic?

Yes what has mostly changed in past centuries are the methods of getting fit, getting flexible and reaction training.

 

I will not be breaking the records from 500 years ago. There's a handful of guys in the workd that can outrun the sprint record from 50 years ago, but I wil lnever been one of those guys... Same for martial arts.

[Treebranch]

Mr. Andrew Green how did you expect me to react when on your last post to me you finshed by saying "Go Play Ninja If You Want To". I took this as an insult to me and the Martial Art I chose to train in. I don't appreciate your patronizing attitude and your disrespect for a Martial Art that you judge based on bad 80's movies. I invite you to seek out a reputable Bujinkan Dojo in your area and have some of the techniques done to you. You will not have disrespect for Budo Taijutsu after that. I don't see how you can still believe that people who trained and fought in the Battle Fields of Feudal Japan were less skilled than some guys training in a Dojo, or fighting for Sport. I think you don't understand the experience that these Masters had being in full scale battles themselves and surviving because of the training that was passed down to them. Budo Taijutsu is always evolving, they even train in firearms if you'd like. It's not playing Ninja unless you want to, Navy Seals and Special Forces play ninja all the time. My goal is to learn a Combat Effective MA and that is what I'm doing. I'm not going to 3 different schools to learn MMA, I don't have the time or the money to pay 3 instructors and to learn MA's that don't relate to eachother at all. I have enough experience in other forms of Martial Arts and in Street Fights to know what works and what doesn't. I never said that MMA doesn't work, my point is that MMA is not the only way to train. You are claiming it is, and I disagree with you whole heartedly. You can mix 3 MA's, we are learning 9. We are learning 9 ryu within the same Style.

 

Now back to your disrepect for tradition and things that our ancestors created. Do you think the Artist of today are better schooled than the Artist of the Renaissance. Can you name an Artist in our time that has been as prolific as Michelangelo. Why are the museums filled with all that old stuff? Why do so many people travel around the world wanting to see this stuff? Could it be that those Artists created something that is unparalled in it's level of perfection? The techniques they mastered were lost do to economics and sometimes to politics. The technology of today in my opinion doesn't make us better Artists, it just gives us a wider variety of tools. Things like how fast a ball is pitched can be measured now, because of technology. The materials for bats, balls and sports equipment in general has advanced. The steriod use and the nutritional supplements have advanced. But the human body and mind, sorry to say has not. Ask any anthropologist or neurologist what I've just claimed. The rigorous training methods and techniques of Traditional Martial Arts would have never been thought of if it were not for the necessity to survive. The techniques being taught in Modern Sport Styles of Martial Arts are limited to the rules of competitions and the repercussions of the law. We live in a consumer driven society and we are constantly being manipulated by propoganda to get our dollar. Combat instructors trained warriors for the survival of their clan, not for the Championship Belt. I think the motivations between the two are very obvious. I think you have the right to believe in what you want. Even if your beleif might be based on certain biases you developed from your personal success. Not everyone is you, and not everyone will agree with you. I am going to say again: There is no Best MA, but some are better suited for Combat and some are better suited for Sport. MMA's is not a MA it is several MA's, so therefore you can't say MMA's is the Best MA. Comprende?

[SevenStar]

I don't see how you can still believe that people who trained and fought in the Battle Fields of Feudal Japan were less skilled than some guys training in a Dojo, or fighting for Sport. I think you don't understand the experience that these Masters had being in full scale battles themselves and surviving because of the training that was passed down to them. Budo Taijutsu is always evolving, they even train in firearms if you'd like. It's not playing Ninja unless you want to, Navy Seals and Special Forces play ninja all the time. My goal is to learn a Combat Effective MA and that is what I'm doing.

 

I haven't read Green's comment, but I will comment on what you said above... people are always talking about combat experience of the masters of their style... that's fine and good, that just because they had that experience doesn't mean that the person teaching you does - they may have never had a fight in their lives.

I'm not going to 3 different schools to learn MMA, I don't have the time or the money to pay 3 instructors and to learn MA's that don't relate to eachother at all.

you can go to one school, if there's an mma school in your area. that's the best way, as you will be learning how the different styles relate to eachother and how to make them flow together.

I have enough experience in other forms of Martial Arts and in Street Fights to know what works and what doesn't. I never said that MMA doesn't work, my point is that MMA is not the only way to train. You are claiming it is, and I disagree with you whole heartedly. You can mix 3 MA's, we are learning 9. We are learning 9 ryu within the same Style.

 

that's one advantage that mma has over some tma - tma has too many techniques. while the mma is doing the same 10 or so hand strikes, the tma guy has about 20 or more hand strikes, meaning that you have many that you will not use that often. The ones you don't use that often will also be neglected when you are fighting. I fear the person who trains 1 technique 1,000 times more than the guy who trains 1,000 techniques 1 time...

The techniques being taught in Modern Sport Styles of Martial Arts are limited to the rules of competitions and the repercussions of the law.

 

Once again, that's an advantage. Because of competition, they can train full speed and power, and test themselves in the same manner - and what they are training are techniques that are effective in the street. the "deadly techniques" practiced in TMA can't be practiced at full speed and power, which isn't advantageious to the tma

Combat instructors trained warriors for the survival of their clan, not for the Championship Belt. I think the motivations between the two are very obvious.

 

maybe, but are tma today training for the survival of their clan? nope. is it a matter of life or death to them? nope. and it most likely wasn't that way for their instructors, and possibley even their instructor's teachers either. consequently, there is no special warrior training that tma undergo. unles you've been in war, you are no warrior.

MMA's is not a MA it is several MA's, so therefore you can't say MMA's is the Best MA. Comprende?

 

there is no best ma, that's true, but he can say that it's one ma if he wants to. mma is fighting that follows a format - striking and grappling.

[Treebranch]

Sevenstar said:

that's one advantage that mma has over some tma - tma has too many techniques. while the mma is doing the same 10 or so hand strikes, the tma guy has about 20 or more hand strikes, meaning that you have many that you will not use that often. The ones you don't use that often will also be neglected when you are fighting. I fear the person who trains 1 technique 1,000 times more than the guy who trains 1,000 techniques 1 time...

 

We have the same amount of hand strikes as well, and there's more to fighting than standing toe to toe and exchanging blows. Yeah we have hundreds of techniques, but we don't memorize them and try to fit techniques into a situation. We respond just like you do, we are just taught to move differently than a kickboxer, grappler or a shoot fighter. MMA's teaches how to fight an opponent in your own weight class in the street you don't know what you'll get. You can't fight a 250 lb guy the same you would fight a 150 lb guy. You haven't even mentioned weapons training (firearms excluded from this of course), what kind of weapon training is taught in MMA's that I can't learn from Budo Taijutsu. I don't have to cut someone's head off to know the sword can cut. We train full contact with certain techniques, I think that's what your getting at. We do grappling techniques and invite people of other styles to try out their techniques on us. My teacher has sparred with the Machado Bros and they were impressed with the techniques he showed them. The training methods we do are the same as MMA's, I'm just saying this MA is already been mixed. Why is it so wrong for people who are getting good training from TMA go study something else. It's seems very unpopular to study TMA these days, everyone is so convinced the MMA's is the only way. There has never been just one way of doing things, ever.

Once again, that's an advantage. Because of competition, they can train full speed and power, and test themselves in the same manner - and what they are training are techniques that are effective in the street. the "deadly techniques" practiced in TMA can't be practiced at full speed and power, which isn't advantageious to the tma

 

The "deadly techniques" work, they were tested in the battlefield and Grandmaster Takamatsu had something like 17 death matches and killed 9 of them, I don't know what happen to the others. This guy was deadly and he passed on the schools to the current Grandmaster Hatsumi. You can choose to believe that everything that has happened before you were born is all a lie, but history is history. I kickboxed and I had street fights, and I did O.K. When I was studying Kung Fu San Soo (Chinese Combat Fighting) a had some street fights, and destroyed them with that stuff, I didn't have to remember any techniques. Now I'm studying Budo Taijutsu and it's not for people who have trouble with abstract thought. It's a very intelligent and complete fighting system. I'm not putting other MA's down, all MA's are valid. I just think saying MMA's is the only truely effective way of fighting is silly, and short sighted.

[metamorph]

And you make my point for me. If cross-training in A and B is better than either, and I make C (whcih is cross-training between A and B), how do you improve on C by cross-training? It's redundant.

 

you add another MA and most styles made with A and B seem to miss certin elements of both A and B

Judo is a modern art invented to be PE for school-children... You seem ignorant as to the subject at hand

 

depends on what you call modern http://www.judoinfo.com/jhist.htm is a good article for this

Why is anything not MMA neccessairily TMA? Why is anythong not MMA neccessairily dogmatic?

 

I was simply asking why the 1 person said it was better to train a TMA then more then 1 art I didnt say a TMA cant be a MMA because that TMA is 1 style weather it has ground and standup or just 1 it is still 1 style

[AndrewGreen]

I took this as an insult to me and the Martial Art I chose to train in. I don't appreciate your patronizing attitude and your disrespect for a Martial Art that you judge based on bad 80's movies.

 

Go back and read yours, and then mine. I will respond in kind.

 

 

I don't see how you can still believe that people who trained and fought in the Battle Fields of Feudal Japan were less skilled than some guys training in a Dojo, or fighting for Sport.

 

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"

 

 

I think you don't understand the experience that these Masters had being in full scale battles themselves and surviving because of the training that was passed down to them.

 

Again, battlefield is not hand to hand or self-defence. Very different environemt, very different goals. Very different weapons.

 

 

Budo Taijutsu is always evolving, they even train in firearms if you'd like. It's not playing Ninja unless you want to, Navy Seals and Special Forces play ninja all the time.

 

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?

I'm not going to 3 different schools to learn MMA,

 

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.

I never said that MMA doesn't work, my point is that MMA is not the only way to train.

 

I agree, there are many ways to train, some better then others for different objectives.

You are claiming it is, and I disagree with you whole heartedly.

 

No I didn't, please reread.

You can mix 3 MA's, we are learning 9. We are learning 9 ryu within the same Style.

 

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.

Now back to your disrepect for tradition and things that our ancestors created.

 

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.

Do you think the Artist of today are better schooled than the Artist of the Renaissance.

 

Yes.

Can you name an Artist in our time that has been as prolific as Michelangelo.

 

Irrelevant. Can you name one scientist more prolific then Aristotle? Are todays scientists better educated?

Why are the museums filled with all that old stuff?

 

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.

Could it be that those Artists created something that is unparalled in it's level of perfection? The techniques they mastered were lost do to economics and sometimes to politics. The technology of today in my opinion doesn't make us better Artists, it just gives us a wider variety of tools.

 

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.

 

 

Things like how fast a ball is pitched can be measured now, because of technology. The materials for bats, balls and sports equipment in general has advanced.

 

Yes.

The steriod use and the nutritional supplements have advanced.

 

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.

Ask any anthropologist or neurologist what I've just claimed. The rigorous training methods and techniques of Traditional Martial Arts would have never been thought of if it were not for the necessity to survive.

 

Sure, for sport purposes. Remember those Greeks?

The techniques being taught in Modern Sport Styles of Martial Arts are limited to the rules of competitions and the repercussions of the law.

 

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?

 

 

We live in a consumer driven society and we are constantly being manipulated by propoganda to get our dollar. Combat instructors trained warriors for the survival of their clan, not for the Championship Belt.

 

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.

I think the motivations between the two are very obvious. I think you have the right to believe in what you want. Even if your beleif might be based on certain biases you developed from your personal success. Not everyone is you, and not everyone will agree with you. I am going to say again:

 

Have you spent any time training in combat sports? I have spent a lot of time training in traditional arts, who is being biased?

There is no Best MA, but some are better suited for Combat and some are better suited for Sport. MMA's is not a MA it is several MA's, so therefore you can't say MMA's is the Best MA. Comprende?

 

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.