Martial Art usefulness, UFC, MMA, TMA etc

monosharp

Hey lads, just recently started TKD and loving it. Am going to take up boxing as soon as I can find a gym near me!

Anyways, I was watching this documentary on shaolin kung fu and started watching some UFC/K1 stuff lately too.

I know this is probably an often talked about subject and I don't want it to turn into a "martial art x is better then all others because ...."

But ...

After watching the UFC it seems that any martial art that doesn't have grappling/groundwork as a major part of it is doomed to failure.

I know the UFC is not exactly the same as a "street" fight but its probably the closest thing in the world.

Something that I can't seem to understand is this.

You have a really really old martial art like the different styles of kung fu and then you have MMA. Is MMA superior simply because TMA's are structure and therefore have weaknesses that can be exploited when you know the style ?

I'm especially referring to the Shaolin Monks here because they have being training in this art for how many generations and they train unbelievably hard. What I watched was a national geographic piece on them and it was fairly shocking to be honest the lengths they go to.

But basically is their training of any use to them ?

Is a TMA like Shaolin kung fu any use in a real fight ? Or is MMA much more superior ?

If Shaolin Kung Fu is indeed the "best" or to put it another way, if these monks are so damn good then why do they not compete in MMA tournaments like K1/UFC?

I've seen several videos on youtube where a TMA guy basically got his ass handed to him by an MMA guy.

I know that each martial art has its place and etc etc etc but surely these Shaolin guys have not being training for x thousand number of years and have failed to see their own weaknesses when a "real" fight is required against other styles?

Einstein

I think your right, it's not really about what Martial Art is better...the likes of the shaolin monks, there's is more lke a way of life...almost like any martial art should be.

I've been doing various martial arts for nearly 20 years...can't actually believe its been that long. I'm absolutley no expert at all, but what I find is that it gives you focus in life and the discipline to AVOID fights and confrontations. I worked on the door for nearky 3 years, and i never had to defend myself once, because i was able to diffuse the situation verbally, with people that I have no doubt probably would have wiped the floor with me. However if I had no MA training, those situations may have been very different.

Obviously for someone who's competing, the style that you choose is hugely important...and one will possibly have the edge over an opponent depending on each others styles.

Thats my 0.02 anyway

Dave

dlofnep

Any art that is competitive and requires elements of honest sparring should be fine. Why? Because if it doesn't work, and the sparring is an honest environment, you'll get killed.

You don't really require ground work for it to be functional for streets either. Stick a good thai boxer in the street and I'm sure he'd hold his own just fine. BJJ is good if the fight hits the ground... or if you can clinch and pull someone down into a choke or whatever... Different elements of the game!

Just look at the competitive elements of kung fu (sanda/san shou) - I'd imagine that's also very functional on the street.. Purely because of the way they train.

The most functional form for the street is MMA imo - it covers all angles, all elements, all ranges and is trained in the right environment. Boxing, muay thai, san shou, judo, bjj, kickboxing and so forth would all be very practical - once again, because of how it's trained.

I wouldn't rely on standard kung fu classes or other overly-traditional arts to help me on the street.. But it would depend on how the class is taught.

Roper

I think this thread has the potential to be locked.:D

I only know that the shaolin monks occasionally entertain people like us with displays of acrobatics. I think the Franciscans could learn a lot from them the dull gits. Saw one of them yesterday at Liffey Valley collecting for the poor. I said "tell you what buddy, break this brick in half, do a head kip and then kick a grape off a needle and I'll give you a euro." Did he do it? No! So he got nothing.

monosharp

Roper wrote: »

I think this thread has the potential to be locked.:D

I only know that the shaolin monks occasionally entertain people like us with displays of acrobatics. I think the Franciscans could learn a lot from them the dull gits. Saw one of them yesterday at Liffey Valley collecting for the poor. I said "tell you what buddy, break this brick in half, do a head kip and then kick a grape off a needle and I'll give you a euro." Did he do it? No! So he got nothing.

Why locked ? I'm not trolling and no reply thus far has being anything but intelligent discussion.

I know the topic has the potential to go arseways but it hasn't yet.

Its just something I find a bit confusing and I'm honestly interested in trying to understand it a bit more.

These Shaolin Monks have being training for how many years in a style that was explicity invented for warfare combat, armed and unarmed. So why is it seemingly so ineffective against other styles ?

Actually I'm not an expert on the subject but I do know that the "performing" monks we see travelling the world are not actually Monks at all or if they are, they are not Shaolin Monks and they don't actually train in the "combatative" style. The style we see the guys performing is Shaolin wushu which isn't the same as what the Shaolin Monks actually practice for "combat".

The Shaolin temple takes in "students" from schools etc specifically to train them in Wushu to travel the world doing this show thing. e.g > Jet Li.

I just can't believe that Kung Fu is so ineffective considering its origins and the way these guys train. Yet TMA's like Kung Fu seem to get destroyed in competitions like the UFC because they lack certain elements.

monosharp

Ok, Think i found the answer to my own question.

http://batgwa.com/squat/article.php?articleId=11&issueId=1&pageId=3

I think that guy got it straight on the nose.

A REAL Shaolin Monk who has indeed devoted his entire life to it and has mastered it would indeed beat an MMA.

The Problem is that these "Real" guys are few and far between.

dlofnep

I'd bet my life savings on it that the best shaolin monk would lose to an average mma fighter.

monosharp

dlofnep wrote: »

I'd bet my life savings on it that the best shaolin monk would lose to an average mma fighter.

How do you figure ?

I'm not saying your wrong, just asking how you make that out ?

dlofnep

monosharp wrote: »

How do you figure ?

I'm not saying your wrong, just asking how you make that out ?

How do I figure?

Double leg, mount, couple of punches. The end. That's pretty much the how covered. The why...? Do monks train clinch, defending the shot? How are they going to be able to stop someone take them down? I don't see monks train high level wrestling or judo. Once they are on their back - how are they going to be able to stop a submission or positional dominance? Do they train intensive groundwork? What about standing.. Do you really think a monk is going to outstrike a top level thai boxer?

Nothingcompares

Just because a system claims to be hold doesn't make it effective or even legitimate.

If the shaolin monks really trained for warfare they'd almost totally ignore unarmed combat and focus on the use of weapons and strategy. Who would win in a fight? A Modern MMA guy and a Shaloin Monk? a modern MMA guy presumably. A moern MMA guy and a Shaolin Monk with a rifle??????????.....

monosharp

dlofnep wrote: »

How do I figure?

Double leg, mount, couple of punches. The end. That's pretty much the how covered. The why...? Do monks train clinch, defending the shot? How are they going to be able to stop someone take them down? I don't see monks train high level wrestling or judo. Once they are on their back - how are they going to be able to stop a submission or positional dominance? Do they train intensive groundwork? What about standing.. Do you really think a monk is going to outstrike a top level thai boxer?

I don't see how you can simply dismiss something that has being around for so long and something where people train so long and so hard they have it learned so perfectly its like breathing.

I can't believe that TMA's are so ineffective on their own, especially something like shaolin kung fu.

And actually, I may be wrong but I've read somewhere that Kung Fu does indeed incorporate many of the things you listed. It just depends on the style and as far as I know, the Shaolin Monks learn many styles.

monosharp

Nothingcompares wrote: »

Just because a system claims to be hold doesn't make it effective or even legitimate.

If the shaolin monks really trained for warfare they'd almost totally ignore unarmed combat and focus on the use of weapons and strategy.

That doesn't make much sense. In ancient warfare it would be quite possible to loose your weapon and from what I know many of the unarmed techniques are just as effective when you have a weapon in your hands. i.e > They move their arms the same with a sword as without one.

Roper

And what century is this?

monosharp

Roper wrote: »

And what century is this?

...

Right now I'm confused.

AFAIK the Shaolin guys train in a martial art explicity designed for combat as it was in the ancient world.

I'm just trying to gauge peoples opinions etc on TMA vs MMA and if MMA > TMA then why ? It doesn't make sense to me that a TMA like Shaolin Kung Fu is seemingly so ineffective.

Roper

monosharp wrote: »

Right now I'm confused.

It's actually so simple that you answered it yourself.

if MMA > TMA then why ? It doesn't make sense to me that a TMA like Shaolin Kung Fu is seemingly so ineffective.

Because:

Shaolin guys train in a martial art explicity designed for combat as it was in the ancient world.

Today isn't the ancient world. See?

monosharp

Roper wrote: »

It's actually so simple that you answered it yourself.
Because:Today isn't the ancient world. See?

Ah ....

No, what i mean is that this art developed from a real actual need for unarmed combat where the objective was to kill. Then x thousand years later and these guys train obsessively and yet it seems ineffective against MMA.

I just don't understand how something designed specifically to kill in an unarmed combat situation can be so ineffective against another art/mixture of arts designed to do the same.

Nothingcompares

I'm no war expert/historian but I'm pretty sure if you lost your weapon on the battle field you'd be killed by someone with a weapon or you'd go looking to scavenge a weapon. You might be able to defend yourself once without but you would soon be killed, I'd imagine.

For a moment lets forget about these terms TMA and MMA because they're ambiguous, they have different meanings to different people at different times. What's better to compare is training methods, those that are effective and those that aren't. Some of the most widely appreciated martial arts that are considered to be trained in an effective and functional way are Judo, Boxing, Wrestling, BJJ, and Mixed Martial Arts. To me, functional and effective means the training is good at making you better at the discipline as quickly as possible and the training in turn will work to some degree outside the specific realm you are practising it in.

An example:

Typical judo training method is to be shown a judo throw. The instructor will take you through in baby steps how the throw works - "your foot goes here, their arm goes here, you twist like, bump, over they go". Next you practice this throw with your partner many times with little or minimal resistance. You understand how the throw works this way and you can "feel" when it's not working. in some schools the resistance will build now and you try harder and harder to perform the throw and you do this until in sparring/free practice/randori you're able to perform the throw. This is what I consider effective training, it's just an example, there are other ways.

This also functional because the throw is proven to work or not work in a resisting environment (the judo club/training/competition) but also, there isn't a real reason why in a street fight I couldn't perform a similar move with a little bit of variation. The throw is functional because it works and not just in the limited scenario it was shown in. The judo student is experienced against practising the throw against someone who is trying not to let them throw them, this is one of the most important ways of making a concept work.

You must contrast this with non-effective and non-functional training.

An example:

Someone shows you how to do a big loopy spinning kick shown at the very start of this video. They demonstrate the move and then they tell you to go practice it. You could spend hours trying to imitate the move and you might be able to perform something similar if you practised a really long time. This isn't really effective. But let's pretend they teach you all the fundamental acrobatic and gymnastic requirements of this move and they coach you in the performance of this move very well and with practice, you able to perform the move. The question now becomes, is it functional?

If you take this move outside the circus ring or temple would you be able to perform it on the street? Probably, most likely. but would you be able to kick someone with it in the street? I would say almost DEFINITELY not. The move isn't functional by my definition. it looks pretty, it's difficult to do, but it's got about as much to do with battlefield fighting as the parallel bars.

Someone might argue that that clip doesn't show "real Shaloin Kung Fu" or may say I picked a bad move for the analogy. it doesn't matter, what ever move you look at from Kung fu ask yourself if it's effective and functional.

Conclusion:

The terms and names aren't important. The effectiveness and the functionality of the training methods are. If you train punching, kicking, throws, takedowns, submission, ground fighting effectively and functionally it doesn't matter if you call it Kung Fu, Jeet Kun do or MMA. If you train in an non-functional and ineffective way it doesn't matter if you call it MMA or TMA.

Fundamentally comparing three-letter acronyms is a waste of time.

dlofnep

monosharp wrote: »

I don't see how you can simply dismiss something that has being around for so long and something where people train so long and so hard they have it learned so perfectly its like breathing.

My apologies. How absurd of me to question something because it's around so long.

monosharp

Nothingcompares wrote: »

I'm no war expert/historian but I'm pretty sure if you lost your weapon on the battle field you'd be killed by someone with a weapon or you'd go looking to scavenge a weapon. You might be able to defend yourself once without but you would soon be killed, I'd imagine.

For a moment lets forget about these terms TMA and MMA because they're ambiguous, they have different meanings to different people at different times. What's better to compare is training methods, those that are effective and those that aren't. Some of the most widely appreciated martial arts that are considered to be trained in an effective and functional way are Judo, Boxing, Wrestling, BJJ, and Mixed Martial Arts. To me, functional and effective means the training is good at making you better at the discipline as quickly as possible and the training in turn will work to some degree outside the specific realm you are practising it in.

An example:

Typical judo training method is to be shown a judo throw. The instructor will take you through in baby steps how the throw works - "your foot goes here, their arm goes here, you twist like, bump, over they go". Next you practice this throw with your partner many times with little or minimal resistance. You understand how the throw works this way and you can "feel" when it's not working. in some schools the resistance will build now and you try harder and harder to perform the throw and you do this until in sparring/free practice/randori you're able to perform the throw. This is what I consider effective training, it's just an example, there are other ways.

This also functional because the throw is proven to work or not work in a resisting environment (the judo club/training/competition) but also, there isn't a real reason why in a street fight I couldn't perform a similar move with a little bit of variation. The throw is functional because it works and not just in the limited scenario it was shown in. The judo student is experienced against practising the throw against someone who is trying not to let them throw them, this is one of the most important ways of making a concept work.

You must contrast this with non-effective and non-functional training.

An example:

Someone shows you how to do a big loopy spinning kick shown at the very start of this video. They demonstrate the move and then they tell you to go practice it. You could spend hours trying to imitate the move and you might be able to perform something similar if you practised a really long time. This isn't really effective. But let's pretend they teach you all the fundamental acrobatic and gymnastic requirements of this move and they coach you in the performance of this move very well and with practice, you able to perform the move. The question now becomes, is it functional?

If you take this move outside the circus ring or temple would you be able to perform it on the street? Probably, most likely. but would you be able to kick someone with it in the street? I would say almost DEFINITELY not. The move isn't functional by my definition. it looks pretty, it's difficult to do, but it's got about as much to do with battlefield fighting as the parallel bars.

Someone might argue that that clip doesn't show "real Shaloin Kung Fu" or may say I picked a bad move for the analogy. it doesn't matter, what ever move you look at from Kung fu ask yourself if it's effective and functional.

Conclusion:

The terms and names aren't important. The effectiveness and the functionality of the training methods are. If you train punching, kicking, throws, takedowns, submission, ground fighting effectively and functionally it doesn't matter if you call it Kung Fu, Jeet Kun do or MMA. If you train in an non-functional and ineffective way it doesn't matter if you call it MMA or TMA.

Fundamentally comparing three-letter acronyms is a waste of time.

I'm really not trying to start an argument but whats in that video is the "show" kung fu, not the combat one.

Now you still could be completely correct because I don't do KF and I just actually started MA, unless you count some boxing.

Honestly, why would the chinese invent a martial art that "looked pretty" but was basically useless in a real life situation ?

I'm really being honest here, it just doesn't make sense to me when you consider its origins, surely it HAS to be applicable irl situations ?

monosharp

dlofnep wrote: »

My apologies. How absurd of me to question something because it's around so long.

Oh come on, i'm not trolling, i'm not trying to start an argument. Theres no reason to take things I say like that. Of course you have the right to question it, all i'm saying is this art came from actual combat. So why is it seemingly so ineffective nowadays in actual combat ?

dlofnep

monosharp wrote: »

Oh come on, i'm not trolling, i'm not trying to start an argument. Theres no reason to take things I say like that. Of course you have the right to question it, all i'm saying is this art came from actual combat. So why is it seemingly so ineffective nowadays in actual combat ?

I'm not saying it's inaffective - I just outlined what I believe to be functional. I'm sure it has it's uses. I suggested that a practitioner wouldn't beat an average mma competitior. It was my opinion.

Valmont

christ, so soon since the last tma mma argument too. Maybe a sticky outlining the various points from both sides, or even its own forum?;)

dlofnep

Valmont has kratty-chopped the correct. Maybe a subforum for MA debate, or theory or something or other.

Nothingcompares

monosharp wrote: »

Honestly, why would the chinese invent a martial art that "looked pretty" but was basically useless in a real life situation ?

These things aren't invented, they evolve organically. I'm sure back in the day the origins of jujutsu and kung fu looked a lot like modern mma. However, through time people have concentrated, explored and developed facets of the art of fighting into much more specific sub-arts. Obviously some people have realised that combat effectiveness isn't really all that important anymore. People don't usually fight with each other. Kung fu is now a hobby and still for some a way of life but not a matter of life and death.

cletus

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=63694

This thread was posted in another forum. Its actually from a member of these forums, but I assume that, considering he has made the videos available on youtube, there will be no problem posting them here. If there is, I'll remove the link.

The actual posts in the thread are less important than the videos posted. I am aware that its wing chun, not shaolin kung fu, but at least its mma and tma.

again if posting the link causes problems, mods feel free to remove it

monosharp

cletus wrote: »

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=63694

This thread was posted in another forum. Its actually from a member of these forums, but I assume that, considering he has made the videos available on youtube, there will be no problem posting them here. If there is, I'll remove the link.

The actual posts in the thread are less important than the videos posted. I am aware that its wing chun, not shaolin kung fu, but at least its mma and tma.

again if posting the link causes problems, mods feel free to remove it

Hey Cletus thanks for the link but its really not applicable to my question.

I was talking about a genuine master of TMA ala "real" Shaolin Monks and the posts with the videos state that the tma guy was no where near as experienced as the mma guy, maybe I misread.

SorGan

monosharp wrote: »

Oh come on, i'm not trolling, i'm not trying to start an argument. Theres no reason to take things I say like that. Of course you have the right to question it, all i'm saying is this art came from actual combat. So why is it seemingly so ineffective nowadays in actual combat ?

well because its not trained in a realistic manner,

monosharp

SorGan wrote: »

well because its not trained in a realistic manner,

ok.

MMA ala UFC is damn real, probably the most real "fighting" out there but there are still rules. Didn't Ken Shamrock get disqualified for kicking some BJJ guy in the head before knocking him unconcious ?

I've also looked at some MMA league rules and a lot of them explicitly forbid punches/knocks to the head. Hardly realistic either, its taking a lot of the advantages of boxing etc out of it. At least thats how it seems to me.

I remember watching a short documentary with some shaolin guy before and the question was about the kung fu in movies etc. He said in no uncertain terms that it was BS (in a much more polite way).

I think many people including myself have misconceptions about Kung Fu, i.e > That it doesn't have groundwork etc when in fact it does, at least styles of it do. The Shaolin guys learn many many different styles.

Remember, the flashy hollywood movies or shaolin tour groups do not perform the "real" thing.

The same Shaolin guy being interviewed stated (as part of the "flashy" question) that a real fight would not last longer then 30 seconds and that a single strike should be enough to win.

I really do see that MMA is probably the way of the future but we really shouldn't be so quick as to dismiss something like kung fu.

All Im looking for is more discussion on the subject.

monosharp

Hey guys, just to clarify. I'm a complete noob and i'm not in the anti-anyone or pro-anyone camp.

I'm just looking for genuinely honest discussion about this because it does interest me greatly.

monosharp

Anybody ever hear of this MA ?

"Gor Chor is primarily a close-range striking system similar to Chinese Kung-Fu styles, such as Wing Chun, and is believed to be the basis of such Okinawan Karate disciplines as Uechi-ryu and Goju-ryu. Gor Chor is a complete system, covering all ranges of combat: long-range kicking, punching and entry techniques; medium-range trapping and sweeping; and short-range striking, submissions and grappling," says Koh.

Sounds like a full system from the description.

dunkamania

3 posts in a row,

at this point it sounds like you are just arguing with yourself....:D

cowzerp

dunkamania wrote: »

3 posts in a row,

at this point it sounds like you are just arguing with yourself....:D

And losing.

HammerHeadGym

When you say usefulness it depends on what your use would be.

Generally, it falls under 2 catagories;

1) Get you and the missus/mate out of a spot of bother with a couple of scummers.

2) Competition against trained athletes.

Most martial arts can help you with option one, if they are trained in any sort of realistic fashion as, usually, scum will be looking for an easy target and the minute you look like you are prepared to fight back and have a basic inclination of how to do it you become a much harder target than they want. However only combat sports with competetive sparring in (almost) every class can help you with option two.

Having studied TMA for 20 years and competetive combat sports for 2, I can honestly say that competetive training is definitely the fast track towards matial competentcy.

Colm_OReilly

monosharp,

The length of time something has been around is no indication of it's validity. This is an appeal to tradition. "We've always done it this way so it must be right."

The next question one might ask is why then would something survive? Briefly I could suggest that there is an emotional appeal to esotericism, or traditional values in a society would make it difficult to question the old guard. There's any number of reasons why things survive long beyond them being useful.

Now, to look at the efficacy of any training program we must examine it more objectively. So what we're looking for is measurable, observable, repeatable results. The closest measure we have of combat would be MMA shows. (For anyone who's going to retort with a ruleset find me another testing ground that provides the data we need to judge the efficacy of a training program)

In MMA, the "styles" that have performed better have been BJJ/Submission Wrestling, Wrestling, Judo, Boxing & Muay Thai. The characteristics of these styles are that they are skill orientated competitive arts.

What do I mean by skill as opposed to technique? A technique is any defined movement/series of movements with a discernable motor recruitment pattern.

Skill involves the reading of a situation, selection of the appropriate technique, and then it's successful execution, including modifications. Skill activies are those in which timing, movement, resistance are introduced unpredictably by an opponent. Soccer, tennis and rugby are skill based activities. Golf, darts and snooker are technique based activies.

Hopefully this shall help you,
Colm

Black Swan

monosharp wrote: »

That doesn't make much sense. In ancient warfare it would be quite possible to loose your weapon and from what I know many of the unarmed techniques are just as effective when you have a weapon in your hands. i.e > They move their arms the same with a sword as without one.

Not in Iaijutsu. I find little or no similarity with TKD strikes, or in observing karate, judo, kung fu, BJJ, Thai, or MMA strikes (including grapples or throws). Although we have several variations of cuts, we essentially have 4 basic moves with daito (long sword):

1. nukitsuke (draw*) and
2. kirioroshi (cut*); then
3. chiburi (clean);
4. noto (resheath).

*Listed as two steps, the draw and cut is to be so quick and smooth as to appear as if one motion.

The ideal is to eliminate your opponent in one cut, but never more than two. Three or more cuts is considered dishonourable and in poor form. From a practical standpoint, in prolonged combat with a series of opponents, multiple cuts per opponent would dull the blade quicker.

Michael O Leary

Nothingcompares wrote: »

These things aren't invented, they evolve organically. I'm sure back in the day the origins of jujutsu and kung fu looked a lot like modern mma. However, through time people have concentrated, explored and developed facets of the art of fighting into much more specific sub-arts. Obviously some people have realised that combat effectiveness isn't really all that important anymore. People don't usually fight with each other. Kung fu is now a hobby and still for some a way of life but not a matter of life and death.

I actually agree with Nothingcompares. I would say that Kung-Fu was a lot more rough and ready is the old days but as people refined it they began to lose sight of the original goal. They could not see the wood for the trees. This is probably due to the Chinese mentality.

Take for example things like forms or pre - rehearsed two man drills. I feel that they are very useful. For example they help to define the scope of what is being taught and as such is very tangible. Because they are more tangible, people tend to focus on them more when really all they are is a stepping stone.

However I think to get rid of them is ‘throwing out the baby with the bathwater’. They ‘do’ have a place but I feel that these things should ‘sit on top’ of sparring, pad work, etc and not be taught ‘instead’ of them.

The thing to do is to be aware of the risks associated with forms, etc and don’t fall into the trap of focusing exclusively on them.

Regards,

Michael

P.S. Guys, go a little easier on monosharp.

t-ha

Hey monosharp,

I’ve been training in MMA for nearly a year now but did some kung fu before that. I think the question has already been answered but I'll just summarise my point of view on it.

Are all the techniques in kung fu complete rubbish? Not at all, alot of them can be trained to work well and I wouldn't dismiss them out of hand the way alot of people do at all & would retain alot of respect for the amount of hurt the more senior guys in my old kung fu school could put on you. However I think that the MMA training I've been doing the last while has been wildly more effective at making me better at fighting, and the reason is (as NothingCompares already went through) the way it is trained.

In kung fu we would learn the absolute minutia of all the movements, train forms (basically kata) and spend massive amounts of time making everything perfect. There were resistance drills but it was all very restrictive (think Chi Sau in Wing Chun), which allowed you to test if you were improving, but didn't really prepare you for doing the moves once all boundaries were removed. Eventually, once reaching a more senior level, sparring would get a little more open and so finally there would be some real pressure testing of the techniques, but the standard of sparring wasn't the best because people didn't have alot of experience with it and there was NO engagement with people from other disciplines (i.e. competitions or even just sparring with the kickboxing class down the road occassionally), which is probably the quickest way to spot & correct deficiencies.

In MMA it's completely the other way around (and the right way IMO). I got shown a few basic techniques and got thrown in with the crowd to spar/roll/get ownd. I.e. The basic dynamics of a fight are emphasised first, ranges, movement, attacking angles, clinch dominance, sweeps, dominant ground positions etc. The minutia of the movements, say an arm-bar or whatever, are the stuff you continuously work on but getting the basic idea and training it & getting it to work - even if it's not 100% perfect - on resisting opponents come first. Along the way you get a lot of experience dealing with people who are trying to fight you back, and don’t just learn how to do the moves right but set them up right too and seeing where they fit in as part of an overall stategy for dealing with your opponent (and believe me it takes time to start getting any of these things right). The idea that you can just train some techniques (however perfectly) and then expect to be able to use them when the time comes without any sparring training is fairly absurd.

This is the principal difference IMO, MMA teaches you to fight & then works on making you a technically superior fighter. Traditional MAs often want to teach you to do moves perfectly and worry about fighting way down the line (or maybe never - from what I've heard of other places I'd say my kung fu classes were ahead of the curve). I think this comes from a lack of competitions - competitions are where you find out the truth. You can give out all the theory as to why your MA is the best, 1000s of years old etc. & disown every guy from your art getting owned in a fight and say he's not a good representative, but if you can't establish any dominant position in a competitive bout then you can pretty much forget about your effectiveness as a fighter. ‘Deadly moves’ are kind of a non-starter too. Anyone can poke someone in the eye or grab their throat, its creating the angles & getting the timing and set-up right to get in for your attack that’s important, whether that attack is a straight right or an eye-poke.

I have more but this post is already so long no-one will probably read it.

Edit: Colm got there first (and alot more concisely! ).

monosharp

dunkamania wrote: »

3 posts in a row,

at this point it sounds like you are just arguing with yourself....:D

Come on, aren't you being a bit unfair on me ? I don't see what I'm saying thats causing so much negativity to my posts. I asked about TKD here a few weeks ago and got very helpful responces so I know its not the people thats the problem.

I'm not on the pro-anti anything side. Its just something I'm interested in and I'm trying to learn about it, I'm asking here specifically because I know f-all whereas you guys clearly know a lot more then me.

mark.leonard

monosharp wrote: »

Oh come on, i'm not trolling, i'm not trying to start an argument. Theres no reason to take things I say like that. Of course you have the right to question it, all i'm saying is this art came from actual combat. So why is it seemingly so ineffective nowadays in actual combat ?

Because it is? It has been tested and always found wanting when faced with an art that uses live sparring as a baseline for its results.

KF and other TMAs are usually tested against imaginary opponents or in competition scenarios that have rules that make them contrived and very far from actual combat, so it is hardly surprising then that when faced with actual combat it can't withstand it.

monosharp

Thank you t-ha, Colm et all

I'm currently in the land of the morning calm (korea) doing TKD and loving it. Its very strict/militaristic but maybe thats the norm I don't know.

Anyways, I've actually started looking into doing MMA as well as my TKD and I've found a place relatively close to me so I'll be looking into starting that this weekend if possible.

I do like the way you described the training i.e > very basic then get your ass kicked, learn from it and repeat. Its probably the best way for someone like me to learn actually.

But, and I am sorry if you feel i'm repeating myself. I'm assuming that when you guys are talking about TMA's your talking about the x thousand number of dojo's etc in Europe, yankland etc. I did a little karate before in Ireland and I did "watch" a lot of it because a friend of mine was mad into it but to be honest I think I've learned more in my first week here in Korea with TKD then my 4-5 months of doing/watching karate in Ireland. I mean absolutely no offence when i say that, maybe it was just my instructor/school/gym or maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention then but it is the opinion I have.

What I'd really like to know is this. Take the "REAL" TMA experts, e.g > Shaolin Monks (the real ones, notthe performing ones). They spend theur entire lives training in this martial code and have done so for x thousand years. The code originated from an actual need to survive on a battlefield in armed and unarmed combat.

Surely to God these guys just didn't "forget" that an opponent can take them down to the ground ? especially when many styles of Kung fu have ground fighting as a main component.

Take a look at the national geographic documentary on the shaolin monks, its on youtube. Their training regime is awe inspiring.

So my simple question is, how can these "real" TMA experts be so wrong ? I completely understand your point regarding TMA training especially in Ireland/UK/USA where training might be 1 hour, 2 nights a week.

And I do completely understand your point that MMA is a fast track to quicker results, but surely these guys who make it their lifes goal to each perfecting like the Shaolin Monks cannot be put into the same category ?

When you have trained that hard and that long and that perfectly, surely ..

I don't know, maybe I'm completely off the ball here. I'd really appreciate your opinion.

cowzerp

Can you not get it into your head that shoalin monks ar tma dont train for all out combat, they train for stand up fighting, also not even in a great manner, boxers, thai boxers or bjj would all make the monks look stupid-thats not counting mma as im trying to explain that individually these arts are trained to be effective, put together they are even better, if a mma striker was fighting a monk and was losing he'd take it to the ground and easily dominate as even mma strikers train for the ground, options are there so you can dictate how the fight will play out! especially against limited opposition like shaolin monks! maybe you watched to many bruce lee movies, when you train mma you will grasp this idea very quickly.

cletus

monosharp wrote: »

Hey Cletus thanks for the link but its really not applicable to my question.

I was talking about a genuine master of TMA ala "real" Shaolin Monks and the posts with the videos state that the tma guy was no where near as experienced as the mma guy, maybe I misread.

I believe that in the standup videos (the last 2) dasmoose stated that he had a comparable amount of training in wing chun as his opponent, but 3 months muay thai. so even though they are not at super gaden ninja level 12 yet, thay have a comparable amount of training in tma (18 months), yet the 3 months of muay thai allows dasmoose to overcome his opponent, who has stated that he is seriously questioning his training up till now as a result

Scramble

I'm sceptical that there is such a thing as a "real" shaolin monk anymore. They're great gymnasts and choreographers, but aren't they basically just professional martial arts performers now, my understanding was their whole lifestyles are geared towards entertaining visitors now?

If someone asked me what a genuine master of a traditional martial art would look like, I'd probably think of of an olympic-level judoka or a muay thai champion, to be honest.

Getting back to the original posters' question, I think real crux of what he was asking is whether he is right in thinking that lineage and the age of a fighting art really matters, or if it is divorced from application. I think the obvious answer is that functional methods produce measurable and demonstrable results, and the rest of it is just 'cultural colour' that comes along for the ride.

t-ha

monosharp wrote: »

But, and I am sorry if you feel i'm repeating myself. I'm assuming that when you guys are talking about TMA's your talking about the x thousand number of dojo's etc in Europe, yankland etc.

Yes I was, but the same applies to any martial art taught in that way. Besides, members from my kung fu club travelled to the Shaolin Monks in China and trained with them and did demos over there. Politeness aside, the impression I got was that they weren't all that (this is the monks who train kung fu, not the wushu guys).

monosharp wrote: »

What I'd really like to know is this. Take the "REAL" TMA experts, e.g > Shaolin Monks (the real ones, notthe performing ones). They spend theur entire lives training in this martial code and have done so for x thousand years. The code originated from an actual need to survive on a battlefield in armed and unarmed combat.

You're missing the point a bit. The answers to this have already been written several times if you read the posts without bias.

Colm_OReilly

If you train at something ineffectual it doesn't matter how long you spend training in it, it won't work.

What sport have you experience in? Answer me that and I should be able to make a comparison that you'll understand.

dasmoose

monosharp wrote: »

Hey Cletus thanks for the link but its really not applicable to my question.

I was talking about a genuine master of TMA ala "real" Shaolin Monks and the posts with the videos state that the tma guy was no where near as experienced as the mma guy, maybe I misread.

Hi monosharp -

I used to train WT for like 3 years, sparred with a friend of mine who had boxed for a grand total of 2 months, he kicked my ass, I stopped doing WT and started doing BJJ. After entering the MMA league and doing the relevant training I realised it would probably be a very good idea to start training Muay Thai as well. This vid was taken last tuesday; our relevant experience is :

Me: 18 months BJJ, blue belt; 3 months approx Muay Thai

WC guy: 18 months WC (I misheard him originally and thought he had only done WC for a year; he corrected that the other night)

While I think it's pretty conclusive that the same time in BJJ will win decisively against WC, this is only really relevant because a lot of WC and Kung Fu schools claim an ability to a) prevent takedowns and b) fight effectively on the ground. Those of us who train MMA style arts know that a pure striker is extremely vulnerable to a grappler. This doesn't take anything away from Boxing or Muay Thai at all IMO - they're fantastic striking arts and a great addition to anyone's training.

I think what's more conclusive (I don't know if you scrolled down further, if you didn't go back and look) is in the striking only videos - 3 months of Muay Thai beats 18 months of WC in the striking range. As for the "genuine master" business - do you think you can train under a genuine master, whatever that may be, in Ireland? Your choices seem to be to train a TMA style or an MMA style available here, and I think it's been proven over and over again which training method results in better fighting ability. Until a shaolin monk fights someone with equivalent MMA training I think it's pretty safe to say MMA training would suit you better if you want to be a better fighter.

t-ha

dasmoose wrote: »

This vid was taken last tuesday;

Are you a ninja? I can't see anything!

dasmoose

t-ha wrote: »

Are you a ninja? I can't see anything!

Well see if you read the thread...

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=63694

MMA rules in the first post, if you scroll down enough (you might have to go to 2nd page) you'll see striking vids.

I'm neither a Shaolin monk nor a bloke but I'd like to think two hard thumbs in the eyes is effective in a rape scenario, whether standing or on the ground.

Mark Hamill

monosharp wrote:

Take the "REAL" TMA experts, e.g > Shaolin Monks (the real ones, not the performing ones). They spend their entire lives training in this martial code and have done so for x thousand years. The code originated from an actual need to survive on a battlefield in armed and unarmed combat.

Surely to God these guys just didn't "forget" that an opponent can take them down to the ground ? especially when many styles of Kung fu have ground fighting as a main component.

So my simple question is, how can these "real" TMA experts be so wrong ?

Check this guy out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I&feature=related
He's supposedly a martial arts expert who claims 200 wins and no losses, and the ability to do Kiai strikes (just look at his training at the start).
But when his opponent punches him in the face, he just looks shocked, like ho forgot that he couyld be punched. People will generally believe what they want
(NB, I know the title says its a MMA fighter who fights him, but It hink this is actually wrong, as far as I know the challenger actually does karate, but I dont know what style)

Another slighty more extreme example of this type of thing is this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1nzD-n25Q&feature=related


Just a thing to remember, just because something is a "TMA", doesn't make it old
(from Wikipedia:

The history of every modern Korean martial art starts after the Japanese occupation (1910–1945),

this means that Taekwondo and Hapkido are less than 100 years old)
and just because something is in MMA doesn't mean its very young
(boxing and wrestling where in the Olympic Games in Ancient Greece, they even had Pankration, regulated full contact fighting, similar to MMA, which makes them over 2000 years old)

t-ha

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Another slighty more extreme example of this type of thing is this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1nzD-n25Q&feature=related

Do I get points for spotting Stephen Bonnar, not being knocked out, at 3:33?