[Crash Override]

Originally Posted by Tim_Murphy

The fact that you are using an example of Tank Abbot, of all people, in a fight that happened probably before the term MMA even existed, which your friend told you about, would suggest that you don’t really know what you are talking about I’m afraid. I’ve seen a fair few MMA shows, I’ve actually been to ones as a spectator, as a competitor and as a coach. The actually incidents of unsportsmanlike behavior are very small. This isn’t something my friend told me, this is first-hand experience. I would say the levels would be roughly the same as with TKD competitions that I’ve been to, and I’ve been to a lot of them too.

I don't know what I'm talking about because I used a bad example? If you want, I can go look for a more recent good example, or many. I'm sure there's a lot. I was trying to use the example to illustrate unsportsman-like conduct. Just because there was no rules back then doesn't make it right, or not unsportsmanlike.

It seems to me (could be wrong) the collective thought on this is that some people don't consider it a Martial Art back when it was first born, but consider it one now. The way I see it, the only thing that has changed is rules have been gradually added to the sanctioned fights over the years. Correct me if I'm wrong but is there any other major changes that happened other than the addition of rules? If not, why is it considered to some, a MA now and not years ago since the only major change has been rules?

It’s nothing to do with usefulness (usefulness for what?). Having 18 year old going around calling each other sir and Mr. and actually all pious and what not is a bit silly. Having grown men obsess about everybody standing in the correct line according to rank is a bit silly. Having an instructor randomly stop training, have everybody come to attention, bow and then go back to what they were doing is… you guessed it, a bit silly. Like I said, if people want to be doing this then good luck to them, but I do find the complete lack of self awareness a lot of people involved in these things have a little funny at times.

Personally I don't consider calling someone by the Title of Sir or Mr as silly. It's formal and respectful. But I guess that's just me.

Correct line and and rank I think makes for good structur and in the case of TKD it was established itself in the Millitary so I think that kinda makes sense.

If person A is a Christian and Person B is a Buddist. Would you think it's wrong for person A to called Person B's traditions as silly?

As Peetrik has pointed out below, there's obviously a clear split in opinions on this.

Originally Posted by Chris89

I assume none of you watched that video i linked above?

If anyone is actually interested in this topic and isnt just on here for an argument i reccomend watching the whole thing.

I actually meant to the day it as posted and forgot. Will watch now.

Originally Posted by Peetrik

What I'd be interested to know as this stage, seeing as we have (to my mind) a clear enough split on a finer point...

Do any of the people here feel that the traditional/spritual/meditation/katas/etc are as benifical to martial ability than the same amount of time spent drilling a technique in a live manner?

As benefical? probably not. But as mentioned previously, I like to think martial arts is just as much mental as it is physical. I think that those traditions can be helpful in mental development but at the same time I'm not blindly believing that any of it will be gauranteed to save me in a physical situation, but again I think, for some people, it can help.

[Peetrik]

Originally Posted by Crash Override

Correct me if I'm wrong but is there any other major changes that happened other than the addition of rules? If not, why is it considered to some, a MA now and not years ago since the only major change has been rules?

Yes there have been changes. As was pointed out, MMA has been developed and refined from being a mix of different disjointed styles into being a style in itself.

Originally Posted by Crash Override

As benefical? probably not. But as mentioned previously, I like to think martial arts is just as much mental as it is physical.

Cool, that's absolutely fine and a completely valid reason to continue training that way. However, just being brutally logical you can understand why some would consider it 'silly' to continue to train in a way simply because it is traditional or personal preferance when more beneficial ways have been developed.

[cowzerp]

Originally Posted by Crash Override

I don't know what I'm talking about because I used a bad example? If you want, I can go look for a more recent good example, or many. I'm sure there's a lot. I was trying to use the example to illustrate unsportsman-like conduct. Just because there was no rules back then doesn't make it right, or not unsportsmanlike.

It seems to me (could be wrong) the collective thought on this is that some people don't consider it a Martial Art back when it was first born, but consider it one now. The way I see it, the only thing that has changed is rules have been gradually added to the sanctioned fights over the years. Correct me if I'm wrong but is there any other major changes that happened other than the addition of rules? If not, why is it considered to some, a MA now and not years ago since the only major change has been rules?

Back then they where fighters and mostly from
Single disciplines, today's martial art is 1 discipline, Mma.

People are doing Mma from day 1 and learning it as an art, fighting form or whatever you want to call it-it's definitely it's own art now and like most arts will differ from club to club,
Ps. Calling some lad sir is ridiculous in my opinion unless he's 80+ and your just been polite, and tkd is not military now so that reason has lost its relevancy.

Chris I watched the full interview and enjoyed it, I'm a 3%er :-)

[antybots]

Originally Posted by Peetrik

Do any of the people here feel that the traditional/spritual/meditation/katas/etc are as benifical to martial ability than the same amount of time spent drilling a technique in a live manner?

Absolutely not. And yes, a lot of stuff in tkd,karate etc. is silly. But, it's horses for courses. For a lot of people martial arts are not about learning to fight. That's why tkd is the most popular art in the world. It appeals to people who are not fighters but who like light training in Martial arts. If that's what people want, more power to them. There seems to be opinions on here that a martial art shouldn't be practised unless it's 'street effective'. I say live and let live. If someone wants to be a ninja or a tkd practitioner who am I to say they are wasting their time just because I personally wouldn't get anything out of it?

Finally, I know there is an issue with people who think the stuff they learn is effective when it's not but you have that in every walk of life, not just martial arts. We can't change it so why bother about it? Most people will just enjoy their training and will never have to find out. And no matter how effective your art is, there's always someone out there who can beat the snot out of you. I'll stick to my MT training and let everyone else stick to theirs, effective or not.

[Mellor]

Originally Posted by Chris89

He talks about his home invasion and how he applied his TMA training to succesfully disarm a gunman in his house.

im sure most 97%ers only made it that far too.

I listened to it while at work. Some good points in general.
Every martial art has its useful elements. And is good at what it is designed to be.
This is generally where I see the evolution of MMA as a style coming from. Using the MA, or element of a certain MA that is most applicable in a situation, and disregarding the rest.

Originally Posted by Crash Override

I don't know what I'm talking about because I used a bad example? If you want, I can go look for a more recent good example, or many. I'm sure there's a lot. I was trying to use the example to illustrate unsportsman-like conduct. Just because there was no rules back then doesn't make it right, or not unsportsmanlike.

It seems to me (could be wrong) the collective thought on this is that some people don't consider it a Martial Art back when it was first born, but consider it one now. The way I see it, the only thing that has changed is rules have been gradually added to the sanctioned fights over the years. Correct me if I'm wrong but is there any other major changes that happened other than the addition of rules? If not, why is it considered to some, a MA now and not years ago since the only major change has been rules?

This whole line of reasoning is actually goes against your original point. The initial days of UFC pitted people from various single backgrounds against each other. Boxing, wrestling, sumo, BJJ, Savate, Kickboxing etc.
The unsporting conduct that happened came from people with a background in a single martial art, not those training in what we know call MMA.So you notion that traditional martial arts have respect for each other, unlike MMA, makes so sense really.

The reason its considered its own martial art today is because people are training specifically for matches contest in the MMA style, under MMA rules.
Back then, it was a contest between people who trained in totally different styles, with no common elements, fighting with no rules.

[TKD SC]

Originally Posted by Peetrik

Do any of the people here feel that the traditional/spritual/meditation/katas/etc are as benifical to martial ability than the same amount of time spent drilling a technique in a live manner?

No!

[Niall Keane]

MMA and Sanshou / Sanda are similar in this respect. Both started out as a competition format that all martial arts could compete in, but both nowadays have become a MA in themselves, that is there are gyms that "focus" on competition rather than use is at a tool for developing part of their syllabus.

There's good reason for this.
As Wim Demere posted on another forum, regarding CMA and Sanshou:

"I'd say it's both the time constraint and the conflicting training protocols. Look at the times of the best decathletes in the world and compare them to the specialists in those events: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decathlon
These guys are world-class athletes but they can't even come close to world-records. On average, they score 16% worse. At that level, even 1% is a huge difference. 16% means you don't even qualify to compete against those specialists. "

My own Sanshou fighters Consentrate on Sanshou for the relatively short time they fight with more traditional training and skill learning during their "rest periods"

It simply comes down to specialisation, of you want to be top in your game. Of course such "combat sports" are martial arts, they use kicks punches and throws evolved to focus on a particular environment as have the other martial arts mentioned.
Some may dislike this, but it's hardly worse than belt systems and military organisation in TMAs taught to civilians who won't be expected to follow orders to their deaths and hav to follow such unquestionably so others can survive?

[Tim_Murphy]

Originally Posted by Crash Override

I don't know what I'm talking about because I used a bad example? If you want, I can go look for a more recent good example, or many. I'm sure there's a lot.

You are sure there are a lot? It sounds like you made up your mind first and will go googling for examples after if you need to be able to back it up. You can do that if you want and I’m sure you will find examples, take any sport you like and you will find examples, MMA, kickboxing, soccer, hurling, there’ll be examples in every sport.

Originally Posted by Crash Override

I was trying to use the example to illustrate unsportsman-like conduct. Just because there was no rules back then doesn't make it right, or not unsportsmanlike.

No, you are right in that. I’m not defending that type of behavior at all. However actions by Tank Abbott back in the old UFC when it was all style vs style has nothing to do with modern MMA.

Originally Posted by Crash Override

It seems to me (could be wrong) the collective thought on this is that some people don't consider it a Martial Art back when it was first born, but consider it one now. The way I see it, the only thing that has changed is rules have been gradually added to the sanctioned fights over the years. Correct me if I'm wrong but is there any other major changes that happened other than the addition of rules? If not, why is it considered to some, a MA now and not years ago since the only major change has been rules?

I have to ask, how much MMA have you ever even watched? It sounds to be me like you have very little familiarity with what you are trying to discuss. For a start, back in the day there was no MMA, there were Karate guy vs TKD guy etc, or vs brawler in the case of Tank. As Mellor pointed out, you are arguing against yourself by using examples of things that happened back in those days.

As for whether MMA is a martial arts or not, I really don’t care what people think about this. As far as I can see that’s just an argument on semantics and terminology. MMA is about functional training, which is what interests me. If you want to take the sillier martial arts, with their ‘traditions’, which generally have only been made up fairly recently, and with their non-functional, non-athletic training and define that as martial arts then I’d say fine. That is one thing, what we do in my MMA gym is certainly something different. That said, TKD would only half fit this definition as it is functional and athletic within the confines of its own light contact sport rules.

Originally Posted by Crash Override

Personally I don't consider calling someone by the Title of Sir or Mr as silly. It's formal and respectful. But I guess that's just me.

Don’t mix up being formal with being respectful. They are not the same thing. Can you really not see anything ridiculous in having a 40+ year old man been given out to for not referring to a lad in his early 20s as sir in a sports hall? I’ve seen this happen!

Originally Posted by Crash Override

If person A is a Christian and Person B is a Buddist. Would you think it's wrong for person A to called Person B's traditions as silly?

Well many (or maybe most) religious beliefs and traditions are inherently ridiculous, so surely this would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

[singlesnights]

Personally, I learnt most of what I know about self-defence from this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skUgegwkX9I

[Gumbi]

I have no problem with certain traditional values. For example, in my club (Ju-Jitsu based self defense) we have a very small bit of etiquette. In total, it amounts to bowing on and off the mat, bowing as the class starts and when it ends, while lined up in order of grade. Once we start training there is no more. No bowing to higher belts, no sensei this, sensei that, no kiai-ing.

[Chaineri]

To answer the original question, the best form of self defence is fast legs.. Turn around and run. Someone confronts you in the street and you will have no idea of what their background is or what weapons they are carrying, run away to fight another day and you have defended yourself very well and will stay alive.

MA wise, I have tinkered with a variety of MA over many years, and found Muay Thai ( Thai Boxing) pretty well up there as a tough full contact MA. Ive had the good fortune to train in Thailand at Thai gyms alongside and by Thai Professional fighters and theres none as hard as these little guys. I think most people who know the sport will agree on this.

MMA pretty OK with the ground work coming in handy mixed with Muay Thai for the "stand up element". Although I've briefly tried MMA, I rather Muay Thai as I find some of the MMA ground work fiddley...

Also bare in mind it is not only the MA that makes a good fighter in whatever discipline, but the individual themselves. Fitness, mental toughness, being able to take as well as give a good punch or kick, and speed , co ordination, aggression, are all things that count. Some people are born natural fighters, some have to work hard and develop, and some will never become a successful fighter in any MA, that doesnt make em a bad person!!. Muay Thai all the way...

[Civilian Personal Protection]

Originally Posted by Long Legged Mack Daddy

So here's the question. All else being equal, who would you give more of a chance if attacked on the street by an attacker with no MA training:
someone with training in one of the "useless" MA's or someone with no MA training at all?

any training is better than no training. In all my past events on the street it was never any single technique that worked. but what was in my head and heart. To me this shows that all combat arts have their place, if the training is placed into context for specific combat arenas.

warmest wishes

Wayne

[Chris89]

Originally Posted by Civilian Personal Protection

any training is better than no training. In all my past events on the street it was never any single technique that worked. but what was in my head and heart. To me this shows that all combat arts have their place, if the training is placed into context for specific combat arenas.

warmest wishes

Wayne

How many street fights have you been in?

Yours sincerely,

Chris

[Civilian Personal Protection]

Jeez, no way would i know a number, or a guess, .

Closest i can get is what i do remember, and my criminal record copy as independent.

I'm not comfortable giving numbers anyhow. It's might be misconstrued or used as bragging. Which being a criminal ain't any kind of achievement. Just an insight, post-criminal, that may help others.

warmest wishes

Wayne

[slammer187]

Originally Posted by Civilian Personal Protection

Jeez, no way would i know a number, or a guess, .

Closest i can get is what i do remember, and my criminal record copy as independent.

I'm not comfortable giving numbers anyhow. It's might be misconstrued or used as bragging. Which being a criminal ain't any kind of achievement. Just an insight, post-criminal, that may help others.

warmest wishes

Wayne

So you've never been in a street fight?