Forum Observation

king_of_inismac

This has probably been said a thousand times in this particular forum, but anyways...

It seems to be the case that almost all threads in this forum decend to an argument about the merits of MMA versus TMA.

I often think it hinders the discussion of the particular topic in question. From my own experience in MA, I've found the longer you train, the better your techniques become, but also the more aware you become of your own weaknesses and limitations.

No MA is perfect, or all encompassing. Meeting people of different MA backgrounds is a great way to learn new techniques, and to see (and improve upon) the weaknesses of our existing techniques.

There seems to be a lot of conflict between TMAs and MMAs. In reality, the diversity of this forum should serve this forum greatly. Maybe its the case that both sides should be a small bit more humble, and learn to listen to each other. Its an issue of respect. I think you should respect the opinion of others, despite the fact that you may not agree with it. Having respect for the opinions of others is a sign for a mature MA.

I don't want to sound patronising or anything, but I think the forum has the potential to be a very good MA resource, provided some of the egos (on all sides) are left at the door,

Martin

dlofnep

It's been obvious that there is a split down the middle between both sects. I sit back and eat my popcorn. The problem usually starts with:

TMA: This technique can kill a man.
MMA: Ok, so prove it.
TMA: Sorry, I don't want to reveal my identity.

In the numerous debates I've seen, this has always been the case. I think this may all end if the majority of these folk go to the boards meet and actually train with each other.

I've personally nothing against any martial arts or martial artists. I've no problem with the way people train. the way we train as mixed martial artists is in an enviroment that only the functional will work. If someone comes up with a new holy grail technique that seems absurd without substantial backing, then the people on here will question it.

This is a debate that will go on and on for months to come.. But I'll tell you one thing, this forum was dead before all these debates started. I think it's healthy at times to question but sometimes everyone goes a little bit overboard and starts to take things personal.

Just my two cents on the matter.

J.

Aslong as the science vs. religion debate goes on....

the MMA vs. TMA debate will rage.

Local Solution: Everyone turn up at the meet and fight and the anonymous internet jerkage may ease.

Dyr

I think people become so entrenched in their viewpoints that they fail to see how "debate" can stifle dialogue. Happens everywhere.

king_of_inismac

I can totally understand the position of the MMA. Techniques need to be tested against a resisting opponent for them to become useful in a self-defence situation.

I've been training for 10/11 years now. I've been teaching Shotokan karate for about half that time. I know it has it's weaknesses, and as such, I've tried many other MA's such as kung fu, kick-boxing, and Judo. No discpiline is perfect, and I've learned something from each MA I've tried. So from that point of view, I can understand the view of MMAs.

However, I often find the viewpoint "I won't listen to you until you prove yourself on the mat" rather intimidating. Why not just listen to his/her opinion, and based on your own experiences choose to accept/dismiss it. If you're in the game long enough, you can spot the bs a mile away anyways...

dub1dude

dlofnep wrote:

I've personally nothing against any martial arts or martial artists. I've no problem with the way people train. the way we train as mixed martial artists is in an enviroment that only the functional will work.
J.

What does this mean? That your training is the only training in all the world of all the Martial arts that the functional will work? I don't agree with that on any level.

Best of luck with your training. But someday you are going to be sorry for making that assumption. Maybe not you, but your students are the one's that will pay the price for making an assumption like that. It promotes arrogance in my opinion.

Once again, I think MMA training and the training you do is fantastic. Much more realistic than some of the TMA environments out there, every club varies. I applaud the effort you are making to improve your training and fighting skills. But it's not the be all and end all of training methods. I think this attitude is probably the greatest weakness of your MMA.

I'm not going to reply any more of post pertaining to MMA vs TMA. That's my stance on it. Sorry for the pun.

And now to get slated.

king_of_inismac

I think you have misunderstood him.

I dont think he is saying his method of training is the best, what he is saying is, if a technique doesn't work on the mat, it's of no use to him:Only the functional will work

dlofnep

dub1dude wrote:

What does this mean? That your training is the only training in all the world of all the Martial arts that the functional will work? I don't agree with that on any level.

It's not up for debate. I was explaining how if something doesn't work for me, I will disregard it as it will be useless to me on the mat. I'm speaking for myself solely, there is nothing to disagree with. Stop getting so defensive.

dub1dude

Ok I appologise.

But what I do when I can't get a technique to work for me is I modify it so it does work rather than dismissing it.

dlofnep

It depends on the technique.. Sure you can improve upon techniques but some are just non-functional and you can tell yourself by sparring. I try not to mold myself to an art, I mold the art to myself.

mark.leonard

king_of_inismac wrote:

However, I often find the viewpoint "I won't listen to you until you prove yourself on the mat" rather intimidating. Why not just listen to his/her opinion, and based on your own experiences choose to accept/dismiss it. If you're in the game long enough, you can spot the bs a mile away anyways...

You are right of course, guys posting here can generally spot the bs, but the problem becomes that the bs you spotted is posed as the truth by the other person.
That is generally why it comes down to "prove it on the mat!", as one side believes the other deluded and wishes to enlighten them.
This generally never happens of course because, whoever is flinging bs knows it for what it is deep down, though he or she wouldn't admit it, so cries for proof will be ignored at best.

king_of_inismac

Actually just a quick question for you Mark (I should probably start a new thread for this).

As far as I remember, your background is in TKD and MMA. From my experience of Karate and Judo, I would prefer to end a fight (self-defence situation) through striking (and fleeing), rather than going to ground/grappling.

What is your opinion on this?

PJG

king_of_inismac wrote:

This has probably been said a thousand times in this particular forum, but anyways...

Maybe its the case that both sides should be a small bit more humble, and learn to listen to each other. Its an issue of respect. I think you should respect the opinion of others, despite the fact that you may not agree with it. Having respect for the opinions of others is a sign for a mature MA.


Martin

Here, here I fully agree, lets learn from and support all MA's.

dub1dude

dlofnep wrote:

It depends on the technique.. Sure you can improve upon techniques but some are just non-functional and you can tell yourself by sparring. I try not to mold myself to an art, I mold the art to myself.

Exactly my philosophy. The amount of Kenpo techniques I have changed so they work for me is nearly all of them. There was some techniques I found that were non-functional until I discovered where the trick to making it work actually is within a given technique. And that goes to stand for any other art I have done. Unfortunately though, when I started Kickboxing and tried to change some of their techniques I was told I couldn't, so I did anyway, same with Tae Kwon Do, Judo, Aikido, Ju-Jitsu etc. Some completely change but the principle is kept. Techniques are only a guideline anyway, I didn't see Moses come back from Mount Olive with them.

I think were off on a tangent here anyway.

dlofnep

All's well that ends well.

Dyr

group hug?

dlofnep

*hugs*

Clive

king_of_inismac wrote:

It seems to be the case that almost all threads in this forum decend to an argument about the merits of MMA versus TMA.

I don´t think they do. As someone who is a practitioner of MMA and TMA (which are completely inaccurate terms) I could discuss either with most of the people on this board quite easily (even the MMA diehards).

The only problem occurs when someone makes unfounded, illogical statements. Because the MMA, sub wrestling, muay thai, judo etc etc scene is quite close knit, it´s very easy for us to back up our claims - you can simply go and roll/spar/wrestle with the person, or watch a tape of them doing what they´re talking about in competition.

If someone has an opinion that´s different, well cool, we can discuss it in a respectful way and try to help each other along the road. But people who come on, simply to tell people THE TRUTH about THE STREET and won´t back up their points with cogent argument and/or evidence will get short shrift from most people - whether MMA or TMA.

dub1dude

Well someone told me before...

Sticks and stones will break your bones, but names will never harm you. So I smacked them with a phone book.

mark.leonard

Its the age old question isn't it!
An important consideration I need to make you aware of before I answer is that I work the door in Galway and 99% of all my "street" interactions, past and future, occur under those circumstances. This is important because it generally removes the (smart) option to flee.
I was at a seminar a while back and the guy giving it had a great way of summarising how you can end a fight -

1 - Choke, put the person to sleep
2 - Head trauma, knock them out
3 - Break a major joint

This rather tall instructor came to the conclusion that of the three the first (putting the person to sleep) was not only the easiest, but the most humane.

I have found that when it does actually 'go' (to borrow some Geoff Thompson terminology), working to their back form the clinch and slapping on a choke is the easiest thing to do, and it is surprisingly easy with regular joe punter as they have never trainined in the clinch for the majority of them, there was an american wrestler I wound up fighting once, but that's a whole other story!

That being said, if I didn't have a working knowledge of stand up, I wouldn't be able to deal with the strikes thrown at me so I could get into clinch. Likewise if I don't know how to work on the ground, I can't handle the encounter if I have to take him down.

Which brings me to your question, strike or go to ground? The Answer is I don't know, in a true street scenario there are a million variables, there is no way I could predict them all accurately enough to give you a solid answer. I have had to take a fight to ground on occasion, there have been times when I had to strike to finish it, and I have used the clinch to get the job done, that is the nature of the street is you can't train for it, becasue you have no idea what shape the encounter will take!

Colm_OReilly

However, I often find the viewpoint "I won't listen to you until you prove yourself on the mat" rather intimidating.

It's not meant to be intimidating, or a challenge, at least at first. In the environment most "MMAers" train in any exchange on something new will go like this:

Colm: Hey Mick, Tom was showing me this way of sitting in guard.

Mick: Show me.

Colm proceeds to demonstrate. Mick then tests it and decides whether he thinks it's any use. If he doesn't like it, we play around with it some more, etc etc.

Since this is so natural to us in our training environment when someone else makes a claim we're like "Dude, can you show us? Where/when can we meet and try it?" with the best intention. However when people make claims and then don't offer an opportunity for someone to test the claim (not the individual) emotions can flare.

Make Sense?
Colm

PS: Mark, fighting with wrestlers? Do tell.

vasch_ro

this place was lot more peaceful back in July 2000

pma-ire

dub1dude wrote:

Exactly my philosophy. The amount of Kenpo techniques I have changed so they work for me is nearly all of them. There was some techniques I found that were non-functional until I discovered where the trick to making it work actually is within a given technique. And that goes to stand for any other art I have done. Unfortunately though, when I started Kickboxing and tried to change some of their techniques I was told I couldn't, so I did anyway, same with Tae Kwon Do, Judo, Aikido, Ju-Jitsu etc. Some completely change but the principle is kept. Techniques are only a guideline anyway, I didn't see Moses come back from Mount Olive with them.

I think were off on a tangent here anyway.

Good tangent though

blondie83

Anyone else think splitting this forum in two would be a good idea? We could divide it into TMA and MMA, and then the fights would stop and it would be peaceful again

Kevin_rc_ie

stupid idea imo.

john kavanagh

peaceful........or boring. nothing wrong with a bit of debate, all we're talking about is physical solutions to physical problems.....not like we're talking about anything of real importance

Kevin_rc_ie

This forum is like the 3rd or 4th busiest forum in the Sports section. It's buzzing. It's a pity about all the OT rambling (i'm a major culprit, don't get me wrong) but it's active which is good.

dlofnep

I don't think we should seperate the forum, it's interesting and active the way it is.