The inadequacies of MMA training.

First, I'll say that I like the fact that you are such an intelligent person who tries to examine things from as objective a standpoint as possible. I like reading your posts, even though they can be controversial at times. People don't understand that martial arts were not always the way they are today, and that they will not always be this way in the future. I am a traditionalist, but I also understand the need to grow and evolve. I just do so within a traditional context, adding to tradition, I guess. I am a progressivist

Quote:

1st beef, Weapons disarms. A school that teaches weapons disams, in particular gun disarms, is a school that has the wrong idea. Often these tactics are way too complex. Complexity is the last thing you want in functional self defense. Also many of these schools emphasize direct contact with the weapon or weapon hand. It isnt a good idea and it isnt necessary. Test it. Get a paintball pistol. Non lethal and not as fast a real gun but quiet telling. Practice your favorite gun disarms to see if they work. Try it realistically so that your opponent doesnt know the exact moment you intend to disarm him. Just dont wear your favorite shirt as you may be surprised. And a little sore. Now do the same thing but this time put your gloves on. Have your "enemy" put on headgear. Run the same scenario but this time rather than trying to disarm him simply try to knock him down before he shoots you. You'll have less cleaning to do I bet. As for knives you could do the same thing with a magic marker. If you got a line or dot you got "hit" and your training failed you in that instance.

I have read about many gun disarms, but I always thought that it was a bad idea to try to do a gun disarm when the criminal only has to squeeze the trigger. Complicated disarming maneuver vs. simple squeezing reaction - um, yeah - I'd rather just hand over my wallet. I'd only use such a thing if I knew I was going to die anyways. So I agree with you on this one.

Quote:

2nd beef, multiple aggressors. I shouldnt even have to say whats wrong with this but here goes anyways. No ammount of training can prepare you for a multiple attacker situation. The reality is that multiple attacker situations usually dont happen face to face. Multiple attack situations are almost always involved with criminals and criminal intent. That doesnt make them any stronger or more skilled, but none of that really matters when you catch a blow from behind to the back of your head, or getting your head stomped in by the buddy of the guy you may or may not be beating up. The truth is that you should make escape your first priority in tis situation, anyone who says otherwise is ill informed.

This is one of the reasons why kata is attacked so viciously. Mcdojo's claim that kata teaches you to fight multiple attackers. That could be one of the possible ways to train it, but I personally never trained it as such and I don't think the kata were really meant for that, but that is just my opinion. It is hard enough trying to defeat one aggressor, why would you attempt to defeat an entire group? Now, there are some gifted fighters who can pull it off, I have seen them do it. However, it is more of the individual's personal prowess and not so much formal training - they did what they did and not all of what they did was from formal martial arts training. I guess that I agree with you again - training exclusively for multiple aggressors may not be the best course of action.

Quote:

3rd beef, Grappling. Dont get me wrong, any complete fighter must be competent in the grappling range. However, most schools refer to grappling as simply being on the ground. This is not the case, as there is grappling within the clinch and also trapping from a standing position. I also believe that while groundfighting is important it isnt the be all end all of self defense. A lot of grapplers will tell you grappling is superior and unstoppable by strikers. BS. Since mobility is the most important factor in escape, grappling cannot always be the best choice. Also, if you were to find yourself in that multiple attacker situation then grappling with one guy isnt going to help fight off the others.

Amen! The recent popularity of groundfighting has led many to believe that groundfighting is the only way to go and that striking and stand up grappling are near useless. It is nice to see that there are good martial artists who are trying to set the record straight. Groundfighting is fine one on one, but is counterproductive when confronted by multiples, IMHO. I guess that grappling is fine if you are using someone as a human sheild or if you are throwing them into the others to clear a path or slow them down. It is all in how you use it, but I agree with again on this point.

Quote:

4th beef, Bruce Lee. If forty years after his death your school is still trying to emulate everything Bruce did, then you my friend, are in a McDojo. Get out while all is not lost. All Im gonna say at the present about that.

Man, you are on fire. Most of Bruce Lee's superiority was mostly in the movies, not in real life. While he was an outstanding martial artist, he was not the greatest martial artist of all time, definitely the most popular one of all time, though. Bruce Lee did what worked best for Bruce Lee and his main message was for martial artists to do what works best for them. He created a style for him and he wanted each individual to create a style for themselves. If a school is trying to teach you how to fight like Bruce Lee then that school is going against what Bruce Lee was trying to teach in the first place.

Quote:

5th beef, One week RBSD courses. Places that make statements such as "become a competent fighter in said amount of time" is garbage and unrealistic. The simple truth is that you must have a committment greater than a few days to become competent. Often, a few years isnt enough. So start now!.

I always thought that RBMA was a gimmick and a cheap way to make money. It seems like all of the instructors are trying to cash in on terrorism and bar brawls. Some of them seem like downright flakes if you ask me. Just another one of those 'I can give you everything you need in no time at all' type of deals. I respect them because they are trying to be innovative and train an area that often goes overlooked, but people could just as easily consult a local LEO or military vet for such training and insights. They can add what they learned to what they already practice, thus eliminating the need for the RBMA fad. Just add a modern component to what you already train in. Adjust your techniques to meet modern day situations, thus fostering the evolution of all martial arts. We already have the tools, just add some new blue prints.

Posted by: migo

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/13/07 01:25 AM

Quote:

Im not saying you cant beat multiple opponents grappling. Randori is an excellent tool as suggested. However, you dont see it in MMA due to Bias, against Aikido in general, and because the sport aspect of mma doesnt allow small joint manipulation. That doesnt mean that you couldnt use bjj effectively against more than one person, but there is far to much emphasis on ground and pound or ground and snap, when you dont have to have the ground at all.

As for dude taking on eight guys at once, get real. Maybe he got lucky once and beat up a bunch of nuns or something but a group of eight skilled opponents? Doubt it highly. Doing it consistently, no way.

I never said anything about their level of skill. That's really not a relevant point though, since you originally said it wasn't possible, which obviously isn't the case. You're not going to take out 8 skilled oponents (depending on your definition of skill), even if you're armed short of an SMG. Dealing with more than one person doesn't automatically negate grappling - grab, throw into the wall, pick someone else up and slam them, clinch and throw some knees, keep going. Someone who wrestles at a national or international level is going to have an easy time with that.

Posted by: Chen Zen

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/13/07 12:31 PM

There level of skill isnt relevant?! Get real. I could wrestle twenty 5 year olds and win easily, but Im not going to come on here and say its possible to beat that many people by yourself.

And I also said, that grappling isnt possible or negated by multiple opponents, but that there needs to be less emphasis of taking it to the GROUND.

Posted by: IExcalibui2

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/14/07 03:32 AM

agreed about the ground thing, many people forget that grappling begins on the feet and arts like Aikido, Judo, and your different Chinese wrestlings are all pretty much stand up (unless you find yourself some non-sport Judo from the old school). And arts like these often have their philosophy and techniques not included in MMA because of some of the rules in competition.

....too much of MMA is controled and influenced by MMA competition

Posted by: JKogas

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/14/07 09:04 AM

Katana83 wrote:

Quote:

Every time something becomes popular, it always goes mcdojo. I believe they have a word for it now - crappling, I think. Yes, a fad indeed. Just like the ninja fad, it will run its course and the same people who swore by it will talk about how lame it is and we will all be back to square one. We have already seen this before. I totally agree with you.

A "fad" that has been going on for close to 14 years now?

Tell you why it's NOT a fad; because people have had their eyes opened to what "real" training should consist of. The blindfold has been lifted by the advent of MMA and people just know better these days.

If you're NOT grappling by the year 2007, you should probably think that there is something wrong with you.

IExcalibui2 wrote:

Quote:

agreed about the ground thing, many people forget that grappling begins on the feet and arts like Aikido, Judo, and your different Chinese wrestlings are all pretty much stand up (unless you find yourself some non-sport Judo from the old school). And arts like these often have their philosophy and techniques not included in MMA because of some of the rules in competition.

What are you saying here, that the reason you don't see Aikido and Chinese wrestling enthusiasts in MMA is because they can't use their technique? If so, I have another theory of why you don't see them.

I'd say that if you can't "use" a technique in MMA, you probably can't "use" it in alive training either. There's a little problem there.

Quote:

....too much of MMA is controled and influenced by MMA competition

Explain that one for me? Perhaps I'm overly slow this morning while I wait for my coffee to finish brewing.

-John

Posted by: Katana83

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/15/07 12:11 PM

The "fad" that I am talking about is MMA in its latest, ufc-like format. MMA has been going on for far longer than 14 years, but the way that it is practiced now, is the "fad" that I am talking about it. The majority of people are practicing only to do the cage thing. Nothing wrong with that, however, it is the flavor of the day and when something like that comes along, everybody will eventually abandon it for the latest "new" thing and talk about how lame the old one is - right after they have sworn how superior or how "real" the old one is. The only real training is to actually get into fights on the street. No matter how much other training you do, you are not recreating the real thing because in the back of your mind you know that you are going to walk away from it. There are lots of people who have never taken MA, but they can fight much better than an MAist because they have been in enough guffs on the street to know how to get the job done. They don't draw on training or sparring, they draw on actual experience from being in real life-or-death situations - that is the only "real" training. MMA was not invented recently, it has been around since the days of the greeks and the romans - people have just made it more popular nowadays, which is another hint of it being a fad. People will make something else more popular tommorrow and turn away from grappling, and the cycle will continue. I have been grappling my whole life, grappling is a natural extension of striking, don't say that there is something wrong with me just because I have a mind of my own and I don't blindly follow the herd to the flavor of the day

. I am a striker, but I work all other ranges into my training because they are a natural extension, and because, well, it's fun. At one point, people were saying the same thing about ninjutsu, and that fad passed. Been there, done that. When ufc is no longer fun, people will move onto something else and talk about how grappling just doesn't get it done. that is the "fad" that I was talking about.

Posted by: JKogas

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/15/07 12:20 PM

I know the fad you're talking about...the one that's been going on for 14 years now.

Everything short of street fighting is "pretend" (but I'm sure you're not advocating going out and getting in street fights). However, did anyone here say otherwise or something? Or is it that you just have an axe to grind???

-John

Posted by: Katana83

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/15/07 02:49 PM

No, not advocating street fighting, but for all of the talk that goes on about real training, that is the only form of real training. I don't go around mentioning "I do real training" because I try to avoid that (street fighting) as much as possible. There are a lot of people who spar with a buddy then swear up and down that what they do is real training, never mind the fact that they know the person and they know subconsciously that they are in no real danger. Yes, it is a fad - first karate tournaments were all the rage, then it moved on to primarily kickboxing, now we are at the cage, tommorrow it will be something else. That is just how popular culture works. MMA themselves, however, have been around for more than 14 years and they will continue into the future - but their current mainstream environment will subside and their amount of supporters will dwindle as the herd moves on to the next big thing. The same thing happened with classical systems, remember when they were all the rage back in the 70's and 80's, now the herd has moved on to modern sport taekwondo, san shou, ufc, etc. Perhaps Chuck Norris' Ultimate Combat League will be the next big thing that the herd moves on to. Then there will be people talking about how superior striking arts are, etc, etc. and the process repeats. No axe to grind, just defending my points. Sorry if I came off that way, that definitely was not my intention

Posted by: JKogas

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/15/07 03:40 PM

Quote:

No, not advocating street fighting, but for all of the talk that goes on about real training, that is the only form of real training.

I disagree. Real training is any training that is geared toward performance enhancement/improvement. There is no training on the street that is going to be "better" in terms of skill development. In fact it could be a lot worse in terms of bad habits, questionable skill levels of one's "partners", death, etc. Need I go on?

What it is is real fighting. Real training is had in the gym. I can and will argue that point all day long.

Quote:

I don't go around mentioning "I do real training" because I try to avoid that (street fighting) as much as possible. There are a lot of people who spar with a buddy then swear up and down that what they do is real training, never mind the fact that they know the person and they know subconsciously that they are in no real danger.

If one must train, then HOW one trains becomes important. The objective is to come as close to the edge as possible without going over. That's what MMA training allows. Any less and you're training yourself OUT of performance. Of course there is always progressive resistance, etc. But thats true anywhere. The point is, you have to train. How else are you going to do it than athletically and agaist resistance?

Quote:

Yes, it is a fad - first karate tournaments were all the rage,

I'm betting they still are. How do you define a fad then?

Quote:

then it moved on to primarily kickboxing, now we are at the cage, tommorrow it will be something else.

Fighting has been arouund forever. Where it occurs is irelevant (cage, ring, parking lot, ice rink). Don't really give a damn about that. It's HOW it occurs that matters to me, just as with training. The how is more important.

Personally I wouldn't care if MMA became less popular. There would be a lot less idiots looking for training. But I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon. Boxing is what is disappearing.

How long do "fads" last in your mind?

Quote:

MMA themselves, however, have been around for more than 14 years and they will continue into the future - but their current mainstream environment will subside and their amount of supporters will dwindle as the herd moves on to the next big thing.

So at once you're saying that its both a fad and NOT a fad. Who cares about what the mainstream thinks and what does this have to do with the inadequacies of MMA training as a whole?

Of course MMA has been around for more than 14 years, but I'm speaking of the sport as it is in the US. Modern MMA has been around since at LEAST 1925.

Quote:

The same thing happened with classical systems, remember when they were all the rage back in the 70's and 80's, now the herd has moved on to modern sport taekwondo, san shou, ufc, etc.

You gather that based upon what? Have you looked around this forum lately?? I don't think the classical systems have gone anywhere. I wonder who you're polling for your information.

Quote:

Perhaps Chuck Norris' Ultimate Combat League will be the next big thing that the herd moves on to. Then there will be people talking about how superior striking arts are, etc, etc. and the process repeats. No axe to grind, just defending my points. Sorry if I came off that way, that definitely was not my intention .

It's all good man, I'm really not arguing with you so much as presenting my own points of view. I agree with some of what you're saying, but definitely not all of it.

Fighting is fighting. Fighting isn't a fad nor is competition. Wrestling itself has been around for thousands of years. The forms and rules fluctuate over time but overall it's been pretty consistent I'd say. Boxing in its modern form has been around for a long damned time now. Is that a fad as well?

Let me get your opinion, what is NOT a fad to you?

-John

Posted by: Chen Zen

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/15/07 04:54 PM

Street fighting is the inverse of self defense. I agree with your point that competition is taking over many of the MMA halls outthere. I try to compete when I can, but my training is for real defense. Part of that training, however, is to avoid that initial conflict in the first place.

Posted by: IExcalibui2

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/16/07 12:53 AM

well John we can both agree that its the not the arts (Aikido, Chin Na, Judo, etc) that are in question right? Because the techniques do work if done right and if that person trains correctly.

My comment was more on that MMA schools now are just taking BJJ and Muay Thai and mixing techniques and training methods . I mean your standard MMA place will have Muay Thai and BJJ as a means to advertise. And its fine, those arts have great training methods to really make you improve.

However, just like JKD philosophy, MMA can mean different things to different people. I mean you can do the mixing of arts other than BJJ and MT or add in other things like the arts mentioned above. As long as you're training correctly whats the problem?

Posted by: JKogas

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/16/07 07:07 AM

Quote:

well John we can both agree that its the not the arts (Aikido, Chin Na, Judo, etc) that are in question right? Because the techniques do work if done right and if that person trains correctly.

Judo I can agree with. It’s trained alive and isn’t about small joint manipulation. The arts that ARE about small joint manipulation are of questionable worth in my opinion. That would specifically include aikido as I’ve never had a high opinion about that art. I have no immediate experience with Chin Na but as it’s based largely around small joint manipulation, I’d have to say that I would run out to begin training it.

And this isn't to say that SJM shouldn't be a part of someone's training. It CAN play a part. But fighting and fight training should be "position-based" and most of one's time should be devoted to training this way.

Within a POSITION of dominance, the percentage for SJM goes up imo. It's still a bit risky I believe, but can work in those situations.

I personally am just not a big fan of that sort of thing.

Quote:

My comment was more on that MMA schools now are just taking BJJ and Muay Thai and mixing techniques and training methods . I mean your standard MMA place will have Muay Thai and BJJ as a means to advertise. And its fine, those arts have great training methods to really make you improve.

Those arts are the ones with the highest percentage of developing the ability to fight well against resistance. It doesn’t have so much to do with advertisement as it does the fact that those arts are trained alive and against full resistance. THAT is why they are the cornerstone of any MMA syllabus.

Quote:

However, just like JKD philosophy, MMA can mean different things to different people. I mean you can do the mixing of arts other than BJJ and MT or add in other things like the arts mentioned above. As long as you're training correctly whats the problem?

Remember that MMA isn’t about the mixing of arts so much as it is about the mixing of “ranges” (stand-up, clinch and ground). If we’re aware of that, we’re already on the right path. Secondly, it’s the fact that the art is trained ALIVE that is the most important principle. So long as you can practice against resistance in full sparring situations (and that does NOT mean “brutality”), you’ll be good to go.

-John

Posted by: IExcalibui2

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/16/07 03:01 PM

the main thing is that BJJ and MT are corner stones for their approach to training, which could be translated to many other arts out there as well. And positioning is a part in every MA whether your going to break someones wrist, choke them out, or punch their face. My point was just that you can take Aikido and apply the methodology of MMA training to it and thus have a very different and more unique MMA school that would have its strength in SJM but still have the basics to cover the different ranges. Just like how some MMA guys specialize in ground & pound, striking, submission, hands, feet, etc. Specialization can be anything the artist chooses.

Posted by: Katana83

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/16/07 06:44 PM

Quote:

It's all good man, I'm really not arguing with you so much as presenting my own points of view. I agree with some of what you're saying, but definitely not all of it.

Fighting is fighting. Fighting isn't a fad nor is competition. Wrestling itself has been around for thousands of years. The forms and rules fluctuate over time but overall it's been pretty consistent I'd say. Boxing in its modern form has been around for a long damned time now. Is that a fad as well?

Let me get your opinion, what is NOT a fad to you?

-John

By fad I meant the flavor of the day, what is most popular, the latest craze, more like the 'in' thing. The original point I was addressing had to do with mcdojoism in the MMA. I was saying that anything that becomes extremely popular within the herd is going to experience mcdojoism. The fad part was meant to address the large portion of the herd that trains in MMA and supports UFC because it is the 'it' thing to do these days, wasn't trying to say that MMA and UFC themselves were a fad, although looking back at my posts, it sounds like that, so I am sorry for the misunderstanding. By fad, I meant that a vast majority of people are only interested in MMA because of the UFC or vice versa, and that once it is no longer considered the 'in' thing that they will move on to the next 'in' thing, talk about how it is the best thing in ma, then turn around and bad mouth MMA and UFC. You know, the whole 'would have you done for me lately?' thing. This is similar to what happened to classical systems, and this is why I mentioned them. There was a time when they were the 'in' thing and they were at a level of popularity equal to that of the UFC and MMA, especially during the kung fu movie and ninja craze. Those styles became so popular that mcdojoism sprang up within them with a vengeance. So what is not a fad to me? The part of the martial arts community that practices martial arts irregardless of the flavor of day, the part that sticks with a style long after it has been abandoned by the superficial mainstream. Kinda like afros, some people only wore them because they were considered the 'in' thing to do at the time, some people wore them because they really liked them and they still wear them to this very day.

Posted by: Demonologist437

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/18/07 01:51 AM

My only problem with MMA is that it seems to have become another school of thought.

Why not just cut away all that "My style is..." or that "Style is..." or "I do not agree with that style because..." and just focus on what we know works; ignorant of where it came from?

All martial artists must inevitably "Mix" in what they do with what another style would do. Otherwise, we will stay bound up in our repetitive patterns.

As the man said, we have only two hands and two feet. Why not talk to the other people around us and see what we find?

For all our talk, who would brazenly walk up to a practioner of another style we disagree with, and say "You sir, are an of an inferior style compared to mine. This is because you..."

I do not despise the MMA, Karate, kata, or whomever else as somehow below me or doing something "horrible". I simply believe they are doing something different. I may disagree with their methods, but I do not have to hate them for it. I'll do what I'll do, they can what they will. My truth cannot be their truth, so I will not try to force it to them. If they ask me about ym truth, I will be honest. If they ask me about what I think of their truth, I will be honest and polite, because I do not feel the need to condemn. I am not holding myself as some saint of course, I am just saying as example.

Really, what are we here for?

Posted by: JKogas

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/18/07 08:05 AM

IExcalibui2 wrote

Quote:

And positioning is a part in every MA whether your going to break someone’s wrist, choke them out, or punch their face.

What do you classify as “positioning”? I have a different opinion here as I don’t see very many martial arts training positioning the way that I see the cornerstones of MMA doing it, particularly Thai boxing, Greco and BJJ. That said, I won’t say that those arts “own” positional fighting. It’s just that you don’t see it to the same extent.

Quote:

My point was just that you can take Aikido and apply the methodology of MMA training to it and thus have a very different and more unique MMA school that would have its strength in SJM but still have the basics to cover the different ranges. Just like how some MMA guys specialize in ground & pound, striking, submission, hands, feet, etc. Specialization can be anything the artist chooses.

Sure, but I don’t think it would work as successfully because I’ve YET to see any real functional use of small joint manipulation from ANY practitioner unless he already had a control position on the ground. If that is what you're referring to, I don't see anything wrong with that so long as you are able to maintain positional control. Obviously that HAS to come first.

Aikido from standing? Doesn’t and won’t work under fight conditions against a worthy adversary. If it won’t (and I fully believe it won’t and have trained it), why waste time trying to work something into a mix where other things work better?

What many fail to see is that LARGE joint manipulation is hard to get on a resisting fighter. Considering that you have MUCH more control over large joints and that they’re still difficult to obtain as per submissions, small joint manipulation is going to be MUCH more difficult to obtain.

My main goal has been to focus on what I consider to be “high percentage” technique. SMJ is not what I would consider to be high percentage. When we are talking about fighting, I don’t think we have the luxury to focus on any less. That would be MY opinion.

But I AM curious to know your opinions and views and I do respect them. Keep 'em coming, this is an excellent discourse

Katana83 wrote

Quote:

By fad I meant the flavor of the day, what is most popular, the latest craze, more like the 'in' thing. The original point I was addressing had to do with mcdojoism in the MMA. I was saying that anything that becomes extremely popular within the herd is going to experience mcdojoism. The fad part was meant to address the large portion of the herd that trains in MMA and supports UFC because it is the 'it' thing to do these days, wasn't trying to say that MMA and UFC themselves were a fad, although looking back at my posts, it sounds like that, so I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

Cool bro, I now understand where you’re coming from.

One point is that I seriously don’t believe that you can have MMA “McDojos”. I suppose you could, but the problem with that is, “performance” (just as with BJJ) or lack of performance cannot be hidden. Performance is always the goal and if people can’t perform, they’ll see it immediately. There are no katas or any other rituals to “hide skill behind”. In MMA/BJJ, you’re always working with a partner and there is very little solo stuff. Thus, performance is always the sought for objective.

Know where I see a lot of McDojo’s?? I see them with TKD schools. They are everywhere. I walk past one going into a grocery store and they are rarely paired up with each other. When they are, they’re doing extremely limited sparring. And I wouldn’t even call it sparring – I’d hate to denigrate the term!

I just don’t see how you could have MMA McDojos because the attitudes and philosophies underlying a McDojo are the antithesis of what MMA is about. I can’t see it spreading out, kudzu-like, in the way these ‘day care center’ TKD facilities are. There is one of those in just about every shopping complex in Anytown, USA.

Quote:

By fad, I meant that a vast majority of people are only interested in MMA because of the UFC or vice versa, and that once it is no longer considered the 'in' thing that they will move on to the next 'in' thing, talk about how it is the best thing in ma, then turn around and bad mouth MMA and UFC. You know, the whole 'would have you done for me lately?' thing.

That would be my HOPE! I can’t tell you how many folks have come to MMA by way of pro “wrestling”. There is just something not right about a 30 year old man watching pro wrestling. It would be the same as a 30 year old man having the same zeal for cartoon shows that a 10 year old might have for cartoons or comic books. Not that cartoons or comic books are bad things in and of themselves. But look into the audience the next time you’re hurriedly (hopefully you are hurrying) flipping past the wrestling show on your television. Look beyond the ring, into the faces and the eyes of the spectators. Observe the slightly crazed expressions on their faces….as they watch….the “fights”. Watch them on the edges of their seats. You would swear up and DOWN that they think it’s real.

Point being, those just aren’t the people you’re wanting to train MMA with. Unfortunately, there seem to be more of them than aren’t. So yeah, I HOPE it becomes less popular. I LONG for the “good ole days” when no one knew what we were doing and laughed at it, lol.

Quote:

This is similar to what happened to classical systems, and this is why I mentioned them. There was a time when they were the 'in' thing and they were at a level of popularity equal to that of the UFC and MMA, especially during the kung fu movie and ninja craze.

Idiots WILL follow a trend and not typically not be trend setters. That’s just because of intellectual laziness. I was doing this stuff 12 years ago. Some guys have just found out about it. It takes brain power to do research and to ferret out the truth. Some folks just want it handed to them. The lazy will always take whatever is placed in front of them.

I personally have never really been into the classical systems even though I have spent time in them. I haven’t done any training in classical systems now for nearly 16 years and that’s because I don’t agree with their training methods for the most part. Many times the training just isn’t athletic enough for my tastes. That’s why I continually sought out western martial arts where the emphasis WAS on athleticism and sparring. These factors are an integral part of MMA and BJJ. This ALONE will drive many away. In many respects, they are the antithesis of classical martial arts (not always however). The aliveness factor tends to separate the athletic gym from the rest. Most lazy people aren’t going to be heading in droves into gyms where aliveness and athleticism are the foundations of training. There is WAY too much work to do in those places and such training requires WAY too much physical conditioning. That is enough right there to keep them from becoming McDojos.

Quote:

Those styles became so popular that mcdojoism sprang up within them with a vengeance. So what is not a fad to me? The part of the martial arts community that practices martial arts irregardless of the flavor of day, the part that sticks with a style long after it has been abandoned by the superficial mainstream. Kinda like afros, some people only wore them because they were considered the 'in' thing to do at the time, some people wore them because they really liked them and they still wear them to this very day.

Dig that brother. I admire your philosophy and agree completely! To hell with the “Johnny Come Latelys”. But those folks are like all the new people at Golds Gym after New Years….give them a month and they’ll be back on their couches eating Haagen Daaz, lol.

Demonologist437 wrote

Quote:

My only problem with MMA is that it seems to have become another school of thought.

Why not just cut away all that "My style is..." or that "Style is..." or "I do not agree with that style because..." and just focus on what we know works; ignorant of where it came from?

And your point is? LOL! I’m kidding (not really). Seriously, what’s wrong with that??? Who cares about where it CAME from? It came from Japan or it came from Sudan – who CARES?! I don’t care if it came from NEPTUNE if it’s functional and works. How does knowing where it CAME from help me keep a guy from ramming his fist into my NOSE? If you can put those two things together, I’ll eat my hat, record it on video and throw it up on YOUTUBE for the world to see!

“Style” is nothing but an illusion anyway. There can truly be no different styles so long as each of us have the same physical structure. Until some three armed, four legged creature from Uranus crawls out (which I hope to GOD I never see), there won’t BE any different styles. So if this is true, what then becomes important is HOW you train.

Quote:

All martial artists must inevitably "Mix" in what they do with what another style would do. Otherwise, we will stay bound up in our repetitive patterns.

As the man said, we have only two hands and two feet. Why not talk to the other people around us and see what we find?

If you were to train completely alive from day one, you wouldn’t really need to talk to other people around you (although that would save time), you’d all eventually discover the same exact things.

Quote:

I do not despise the MMA, Karate, kata, or whomever else as somehow below me or doing something "horrible". I simply believe they are doing something different. I may disagree with their methods, but I do not have to hate them for it. I'll do what I'll do, they can what they will. My truth cannot be their truth, so I will not try to force it to them. If they ask me about ym truth, I will be honest. If they ask me about what I think of their truth, I will be honest and polite, because I do not feel the need to condemn. I am not holding myself as some saint of course, I am just saying as example.

Really, what are we here for?

I don’t hate others or their methods either. I merely don’t agree with many of the methods that I’ve seen and experienced. But that’s why I chose the path I do. I’m also not telling other people what to do or how to do it.

I am only providing my own points of view which you or anyone else are free to take or leave. THAT is what we’re here for.

-John

Posted by: IExcalibui2

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/18/07 10:32 AM

John all you've merely said about arts like Aikido that it is unprobably and it is difficult, obstacles that can be overcomed through hard work. We can all agree your own personal effectiveness comes from HOW you train. And a training methodology can be applied to any art out there whether it be Aikido or Capoeira or Kungfu or Muay Thai.

In your previous post you said:

Quote:

If you were to train completely alive from day one, you wouldn’t really need to talk to other people around you (although that would save time), you’d all eventually discover the same exact things.

well here you go, two different arts but they eventually lead to the same thing. Its just that they chose different routes to get to the same destination. And honestly if an art has never worked then why would it exist?

Many people laugh at Capoeira but if you read the history the art was pretty brutal back then, with people dying and getting slashed up from machetes. Dangerous enough for Brasil to ban it. Is it not logical to say that Capoeira has proven its worth? or Muay Thai/Kungfu/Wrestling/Boxing/and whatever art you wanna throw in there.

Posted by: Demonologist437

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/18/07 03:49 PM

My point is and was, is that it is starting to look like you have MMA guys out there grading other arts based on MMA. Just like how all the other arts grade all the other arts based on whatever art they represent. That's what I meant by "School of Thought". Sorry it wasn't clearer.

My point is though I will openly admit I am most likely rather young in the martial arts compared to most of you, I still see something I think is eating away at us. That being, that fact we are starting to look like the world's religions in our little quarrels and quipping. Everybody's truth and training is gospel, and cannot be altered or adjusted in any way. Everybody's truth is right, and everybody else is just doing "something else". Everbody is always grading, why not just try to learn? Why not totally throw away all the titles and classifications?

But at any rate, as heated as the discussions may be, asking diehard adherents of whatever training method or system to question themselves and maybe cast off what they have so strongly adhered to is like bugging a Christian to join in a Pagan ritual spell.

Not gonna happen. So, instead of constantly bugging one another, why not just talk? Why not just ask what works for us, why we like it, and answer people's questions about it?

Maybe I'm just naive or idealistic.

Posted by: Chen Zen

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/18/07 04:34 PM

Id say idealistic. The truth is people often build an illusion around the things they enjoy. Since they do it, it must be THE WAY. You cant always expect a nice answer when you show someone that that isnt always the case.

As for Aikido and SJM, it isnt in MMA largely because it isnt allowed in competition. At least, IMO.

Posted by: IExcalibui2

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/18/07 10:47 PM

Quote:

As for Aikido and SJM, it isnt in MMA largely because it isnt allowed in competition. At least, IMO.

Yea thats what I mean. Most MMA schools out there teach the kind of MMA you would use if you were in the UFC or something. But MMA is more about ranges and training methods. I can take those training methodologies and apply them to other arts like Aikido. Its still MMA even though you might not look like Tito Ortiz when you're fighting. People have this image of MMA and what it should look like and what your training should consist of, most likely BJJ and Muay Thai. But MMA doesnt have to look like anything. It can look like whatever you want it to be.

Posted by: Chen Zen

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/19/07 03:01 PM

I partially agree with that anyways. It isnt always going to look the same, but it isnt necessarily about using what you want. It still has to be applied to pressure testing.

The reason so many go for BJJ and Muay Thai is because so many have before them. Many people looked at Muay Thai as the best because its basically western boxing with knees and low level kicking. Elbows and headbutts already existed in western boxing. The thinking behind it is, if you could teach a boxer how to kick or block a kick, how would you strike him? The answer is, not very easily.

Then BJJ blew up. Some people knew about it, or had prior grappling knowledge but when UFC was won by gracie, many people just assumed that if you cant do BJJ, you are going to lose.

So of coarse these two would be paired together. The "best" striking method with the "best" grappling method. However, whenever someone is taking seperate systems, you have to be able to transition those things easily from one to another, and from one range to another. Good MMA teaches and emphasis on these transitions and postioning. Thats what really seperates them from someone just throwing a bunch of things together and calling it MMA.

Posted by: JKogas

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/19/07 05:43 PM

IExcalibui2 wrote

Quote:

Most MMA schools out there teach the kind of MMA you would use if you were in the UFC or something. But MMA is more about ranges and training methods. I can take those training methodologies and apply them to other arts like Aikido.

Ok, I was with you right up until you mentioned aikido.

Seriously, that art doesn’t cut the mustard for real fighting. Hell, many high ranking aikido guys have even admitted as much.

It all has to do with those standing wrist manipulations -- not very functional IMO.

Quote:

Its still MMA even though you might not look like Tito Ortiz when you're fighting. People have this image of MMA and what it should look like and what your training should consist of, most likely BJJ and Muay Thai. But MMA doesnt have to look like anything. It can look like whatever you want it to be.

MMA “looks” a certain way because folks have managed to distill methods that work against true resistance. Silat takedowns will NEVER work in MMA simply because they aren’t functional. Wrestling takedowns work because they ARE. Aikido isn’t seen because the tactics aren’t very high percentage when people are throwing haymakers. We should try to realize that form follows function, not the other way around.

Chen Zen wrote

Quote:

I partially agree with that anyways. It isnt always going to look the same, but it isnt necessarily about using what you want. It still has to be applied to pressure testing.

EXACTLY, and that is an excellent point that Cory brings up! Under pressure testing, many strategies fall by the wayside. One such is the aikido approach, etc. We need to understand that style is an illusion. So lets even FORGET about aikido for a moment. What does aikido consist of? That is primarily throws by way of wrist control. Not only that, but the manipulations are polished down to their bare essence leaving VERY little margin for error. That is a HUGE risk considering what’s at stake. The approach doesn’t work very well when you’re dealing with a worthy opponent throwing Tank Abbott style haymakers or, anyone with high school level wrestling and beyond.

Quote:

The reason so many go for BJJ and Muay Thai is because so many have before them. Many people looked at Muay Thai as the best because its basically western boxing with knees and low level kicking. Elbows and headbutts already existed in western boxing. The thinking behind it is, if you could teach a boxer how to kick or block a kick, how would you strike him? The answer is, not very easily.

Then BJJ blew up. Some people knew about it, or had prior grappling knowledge but when UFC was won by gracie, many people just assumed that if you cant do BJJ, you are going to lose.

So of coarse these two would be paired together. The "best" striking method with the "best" grappling method. However, whenever someone is taking seperate systems, you have to be able to transition those things easily from one to another, and from one range to another. Good MMA teaches and emphasis on these transitions and postioning. Thats what really seperates them from someone just throwing a bunch of things together and calling it MMA.

More excellent points. BJJ, boxing, muay Thai, wrestling, judo are all a part of the mix that is MMA for one very simple reason – they can be trained completely ALIVE. How quickly its forgotten that aliveness is the very quality that makes a fighter functional and capable of competing (read, “able to fight”). If your art is practiced alive, then obviously it can be included in MMA. If not, a person isn’t going to be able to fight, so really it’s a moot point anyway.

-John

Posted by: IExcalibui2

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/19/07 07:50 PM

Aikido may contain wrist manipulation as part of what they teach but that isnt the entire art. A main focus of Aikido is simply to use other people's force against them. Yes its definitely hard to train wrist locks alive but theres more to it than that. How about hte blocks and counters and arm/elbow manipulations?

Like I've said before theres a reason why the MA was created and is still around. Much of Aikido came from movement and techniques that were used by Samurai. Now whether or not people can find a way to use what they have learned from Aikido is a matter of how the train.

Train the right way and you'll get the right results.

What art you decide to train in really doesnt matter.

Posted by: JKogas

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/19/07 08:45 PM

Remember...these are just my own points of view...

Quote:

A main focus of Aikido is simply to use other people's force against them.

Judo and wrestling do that and do it better. Why not just train those? I mean, why aikido? You don’t see aikido contests. But you do see judo and wrestling contests. There is a very important reason for this.

Quote:

Yes its definitely hard to train wrist locks alive but theres more to it than that. How about hte blocks and counters and arm/elbow manipulations?

Basic boxing handles defense better. In fact, you learn better defense in your first week of boxing than you will in YEARS studying aikido. Also, judo and wrestling handle arm and elbow manipulations better.

My point to this is, SHOW me, don’t TELL me. I’ve already SEEN and experienced boxing, Thai boxing, wrestling, judo AND aikido and there is no comparison. A competent BLUE belt in Brazilian jiu-jits would THROTLE the overwhelming majority of aikido blackbelts.

There is a reason why I have chosen to study the arts that I have – it’s because they are simply more better at producing results. Results are what I’m after and I’m after them quickly. I don’t want to have to wait 15 years to be functional at an art form to be able to use it. By the time I’ve spent fifteen years in Brazilian jiu-jitsu, I’ll be light years ahead of another individual who has spent 15 years in aikido anyway. And again, there is a reason for that.

Quote:

Like I've said before theres a reason why the MA was created and is still around. Much of Aikido came from movement and techniques that were used by Samurai.

The samurai fought with a sword, not an empty hand. If he didn’t, he was a dead samurai.

Quote:

Train the right way and you'll get the right results.

That much we agree on.

-John

Posted by: migo

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/20/07 06:16 AM

Quote:

well here you go, two different arts but they eventually lead to the same thing.

only if they train alive.

Posted by: IExcalibui2

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/20/07 11:22 AM

Well John the reason why you say these arts are "better" is beacuse of the way they train right? So if you train the right way any art is as effective as the next. And that I believe is true and so do you at the bottom of your last post.

I don't want to run this conversation in circles because it is more about training then it is about the art.

Posted by: JKogas

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 01/20/07 05:03 PM

If trained alive, what you'll notice are one of two things:

1. Whatever you're doing will be made more functional

2. Some things WILL out of necessity, have to be discarded because they are NOT practical no matter HOW much you train it.

In my opinion, aikido falls into the Number TWO category (and you guys can read that however you want to, lol)

Bottom line is, does it work for you with aliveness? If so, you don't need MY confirmation. But that is a HUGE question. First off, are you training aikido alive? Are you working it alongside boxing, wrestling and everything else that is already a big part of MMA.

I say that because some people "think" what they're doing is alive and it sometimes turns out NOT to be.

Happy training!

-John

Posted by: Jones

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 02/03/07 07:06 PM

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=master+wong+jkd
JKD grappling and other methods to approach MMA jkd wise

Posted by: RoninKurosawa

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 02/11/07 03:19 AM

Well i'm not qualified as a martial artist of anything because i just learn whatever i think will work best in self defence. So my way isn't exactly a martial art in the traditional sense.

I'm definitly not in great shape like the mma guys are but i think the way i approuch fighting may or may not be similar. I would like to know what people think of my methods and if they would be similar to what you guys think mix martial arts should be.

The first thing i started learning was siu lim tao of wing chun after practicing that for awhile i read some books on jeet kuen do and realized that i should learn many different things to become better at self defence.

I quickly realized that tai ji wouldn't help self defence wise so i stopped doing it, don't get me wrong i think tai ji is great for your health but definitly should not be considered a fighting style not even chen tai ji. I still practice Qi gong for health and stress relief.

After that i became interested in something more practical but also having a strong philosophy so then i noticed bagua and i practiced some but didn't see the point of learning the whole form for lack of practical applications.

I practiced boxing techniques some which are great for alive training and quick reactions. Also no matter what martial art someone does i believe they should always have a heavy bag and light bag and should drill with basic techniques on it like jabs and crosses hooks are good to.

I saw muay thai fight and realized it was very practical so i try to incoperate that into my way.
I've also recently practice some simple techniques that are similar to some drills in xingyiquan.

I've studied on a few techniques from aikido and qin na but soon realized they would be very difficult to exercute in a self defence situation because of the complexities of small joint locking and complex throws. Allthough any simple and large joint locking could easily be applied in real life. as in the shoulder but of course you must be prepared for any reaction.

After trying alot of different stuff of my own accord this is the routines and drills i've come to practice. Everytime time i practice i do all of the things below.

Stretch out
1. Qigong
2. Siulimtao, wingchun first form
3. Catwalk with some palm changes in reverses, bagua
4. strait line drills techniques from Muai thai, Wing chun, boxing, and xingyiquan
5. Mutiple direction drills using similar techniques
6. Shadow boxing using practical techniques from many styles
7. Spar with others whenever possible in a safe envirnment
includes partial contact to full contact and full range sparring are important for any self defence
( i would do heavy bag and light bag training everyday but i currently do not have any punching bags allthough i will eventually get some )
Last but not least Stretch out again then take a shower.

I'm sure you all realized that i didn't mention grappling and i know that its important to train with grappling and ground work but i still have no experience in the grappling area or at least not when it comes to ground fighting, ground fighting is something i need to add to my routine in the future because its definitly important.

What i have found is that techniques from all these styles can help and work together for a practical self defence.

Adavantages
1. wingchun, direct and simple striking and blocking techniques with solid philosophy on guarding your center
2. bagua, catwalk with palmchange and reverse is very helpful for increaseing over all body speed and uniform body mechanics
3. xingyiquan, very useful for developing short range power
4. muay thai, important for learning simple techniques that use your whole body to defend and attack, very simple and powerful uses full body range for great defence and attack
5. boxing, is of course in my opinion something any self defence practioner should have a solid foundation in, its simplicity and aliveness keeps your oppenent guessing while its training makes your punches very powerful and fast

I know these are not the most eleborate or best ways to explain the advantages of using many different styles and techniques but i think i pointed out some things that people should look for in techniques for self defence.

In the end my way is a combination of all the things i've ever learned that seemed practical or could improve my self defence in some way.

I wrote all of this to illustrate my progress and changes of development in martial art, i think anyone that is interested in mix martial art or jeet kuen do may go through similar development in their own way.

My question regarding mix martial arts is if after reviewing my methods, Rather my way would be considered a mixed martial art ? and also do you all think that my methods are effective or at least in theory should be.
I guess i consider the way i fight mixed martial art but i'm wondering what other people think about my methods.

Posted by: Taison

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 02/11/07 05:31 AM

Quote:

4. muay thai, important for learning simple techniques that use your whole body to defend and attack, very simple and powerful uses full body range for great defence and attack

I don't understand. Mind elaborating?

My training consist mainly of Karate, Muay Thai (new and old), Judo and wrestling.

1. Karate (Advanced striking techniques and Kata)
2. Muay Thai, my "core", all my instincts are from MT)
3. Judo, advanced clinch and effective "non-effort" throws.
4. wrestling. advanced clinch and effective throws and takedowns.

By non-effort, I mean the throws are more mechanic than strength based. Wrestling have some REALLY AWESOME strength based throws, for example suplex, elevated double-leg takedown, etc. Not only that, wrestling makes me a monster in no-gi clinch games. I love wrestling.

If you look at my fighting style in person, however, it looks more like a MT Judo fighter, but wrestling is very dominant in my grappling game.

-Taison out

Posted by: Katana83

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 02/11/07 02:07 PM

My, you have assembled a rich tapestry of martial methods. Do what works best for you. From reading your post, you are doing exactly that, so more power to you. I personally recommend that you should choose a base style and become competent in that, then you should learn other styles that specialize in the areas that your main style either doesn't emphasize as much or flat out doesn't address. Work from a base then add the other pieces to build your complete system. I say this because you want to avoid becoming a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none, and you want to have a focal point so that you don't "get lost" in the myriad of methodologies that you explore. We are all mixed martial artists to a certain point. I trained in shotokan, Taekwondo, JKD, WC, Escrima, and a little bit of Aikido. I didn't do this intentionally, but the circumstances of moving around required me to do so or remain idle. I currently train traditional karate again, but you can definitely see the influences from the other styles that I trained in. I readily implement continuous movement, centerline principles/tactics, Yin Yang theory, and a host of other principles into my traditional karate training. I am a progressivist

. Taison's base is Muay Thai, and my base is Shotokan. What is your base? Btw, You have a very nice training method, and it sounds like it would be a lot of fun to work out with you.

Posted by: RoninKurosawa

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 02/12/07 01:18 AM

Yes, i mentioned wing chun first because that is my base style or the core to my self defence i guess. I started training wing chun first and i still do seperately and also combined with other methods. So basicly wing chun is my foundation and the rest of the methods i use were to fill in anything wing chun lacked for me in self defence.

My style if you want to call it that would probably look like modified wing chun to most people, the main differences being that i include techniques that work from other styles and remove any technique that is unrealistic.
The other methods arn't just for techniques but also methods that help me improve a range of concerns like speed, reaction time, body mechanics, and fluidity. I also add many different methods so that i have many ways to view my self defence so that i can always improve it, and also so i can understand self defence from all angles.

Thanks for the feedback, i'll talk to you all later.

Posted by: TeK9

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 05/14/07 09:14 PM

Hi all,

I chose not to participate in this thread until I had a reasonable answer. I've also chosen not to follow along and read other peoples post so that my own post could represent my own thoughts unaltered by other perspectives. So I apologize in advance if what I say here is redundant from previous posts.

My point is short and simple.

One inadequacy of MMA training is that when people think MMA they think NHB, but in reality they are more likely thinking Sport and not real NHB. So when you have people who get involved with MMA schools and now feel they are superior and ready to take on any attack in a real self defense altercation, they end up sadly mistaken. Often people fail to see that there is a huge list of rules upon which NHB competition abides by in order to make it safe for competitors. Unlike street fighting where there are no rules. Then there is a split between traditionalist and MMA's. Traditionalist who only want to practice drills all day long without sparring, wrestling, ground fight, stick fighting or anything combative will lack street fighting ability. Opposed to the MMA guys who don't do any drills because they feel they don't need it, instead they focus completely on sparring. This is not as bad but it's close because these guys will eventually feel burnout, because you cant spar all the time. You need a balance between drilling and sparring, self perfection with self preservation. There are just some things that cannot be practiced with sparring, however, this does not mean they cannot be practiced for with proper drilling. Thanks guys, thats it.

Posted by: JKogas

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 05/14/07 10:34 PM

Tek -

With all due respect, while I see where you're coming from, it's obvious that you don't have a fully developed understanding of what MMA means, "sport" training is, or what sparring is actually like for most folks.

Also, MMA guys drill constantly, oddly enough.

-John

Posted by: Neko456

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 05/15/07 01:41 PM

Quote:

Well, here it is. I had my way with Karate, so now I focus on something a little closer to home. The MMA scene.

1st beef, Weapons disarms. A school that teaches weapons disams, in particular gun disarms, is a school that has the wrong idea. I disagree as often we do Chen. I believe these technique should be taught in general but they are really important to field specific personnel. Granted if the techniques are complicated there is less chances of its being effectiveness. But if simple and direct it raises the chances for success. Most Police,Security and Military forces teache them. I closes my argument with that FACT.

2nd beef, multiple aggressors. I shouldnt even have to say whats wrong with this but here goes anyways. No ammount of training can prepare you for a multiple attacker situation.

I disagree here also, Training is always better then no training. Even if just realizing immeadiately whats going on as a Warrior/Martial artist we learn to think while in pain, rather then being shocked and demolished wondering why is this happening to Me. You react attacking and seeking an exit. I agree that escape is the key and not standing and trying to win this fight. But fighting to make a exit.All is not lost if you trained to react purposely and forceful. The Military and Swat practice this also, its called a Tactical retreat.

3rd beef, Grappling. We have no argument here Grappling on the street is a no, no. Unless you just have to. Then its kinda like a pocketknife or a rifle of on camping trip, you don't need it until you really need it.

4th beef, Bruce Lee. he has made my job so hard that I won't say much about this subject. But will say he was one of the 1st to realize and present MMA to the general public in JKD as a theroy. But I really get tried of no skill people saying Bruce said "we should put gear on & go full out". I have to tell them he was not talking to YOU. Get some skills 1st.

5th beef, One week RBSD courses. Places that make statements such as "become a competent fighter in said amount of time" is garbage and unrealistic.

I will agree if your purpose is to use these short course as a base. But to take these principle and add them to your base I see nothing wrong with that. If you already have something that works I see nothing wrong with add to your arsenal.

Training is good Training as long as its close to being realistic.

Chen the Philosopher always starting trouble. Feeding on himself this time.

GREAT POST!! Good reading.

Posted by: cxt

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 05/15/07 05:56 PM

Chen

You may be right.

It just reads to me like problems with specific schools and certain people that teach MMA, proabably not inherent problems with MMA as a whole.

Probably.

Posted by: Demonologist437

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 05/16/07 03:22 PM

For the record, from what I understand about Akido, it is Ueshiba's own version of Daito-Ryu. Daito-Ryu technically isn't a self-defense art(in that it is the single practioner against one, or at worst, a very small group of people) because it is a distillation of the bujutsu empty-hand fighting methods when the warriors were in armor and trying to support their unit.

So, in a snese Mr. Kogas is right about that.

Honestly, the way I look at it now as opposed to how I used to look at things when entrenched in my old training is that there really isn't such a thing as a "non-functional" martial art. Every "martial art" or "style" you see out there is just a segment of the totality. While certainly a weakness it still means, I would say, that in attempting to understand it in accordance with the other segments and the totality(fighting, athletic expression, you get it...) it can teach you something that can be used in accordance with what you know and make what you do more functional. And besides, by whose standards are we grading functionality? Somehting that works in the ring? In a spar? IN a street fight? According to a certain method/style? According to a single/group/organisation's standards? I'd say, it's fuinctional if you LEARN something by studying it, no matter how small or large. Every inch and advantage counts, in my book. Because then, you can learn to apply it.

So, MMA is just another segment of that totality; if you want to look at it that way. It will have it's own strengths and weaknesses in comparison to other "fighting arts", and it will draw the line in the sand that seperates what it thinks works and doesn't.

Now, I wouldn't say that means every single specific TECHNIQUE is important and infallible form every Martial Art. Technique is just something you're supposed to get beyond anyways, and it's already probably been hammered into the ground the deficiencies of the "And then, and then, and then..." method. Further, in my own opinions techniques simply exist until you get the idea. Walking aorund with a hundred different techniques in your head that you call your martial art, in my opinion, is not the way. Techniuqes are just static products of the ideas behind them that make up a "martial art", which as Bruce said numerous times is something we want to avoid.

Personally, I don't see any inadequacies in MMA. It's information and potential knowledge like the rest, so why start grading it according to the paper it comes wrapped in?

On a side note, I'd say the only problem with MMA, as in many arts, is not MMA but it's practioners. Everybody is all psyched up about how the Gracies or such-and-such dropped them, and you get young kids who go around and start challenging people, or telling them what the "real stuff" is. Happend to my old grandmaster, a Kempo master, and he dropped the three punks who "challenged" him. Not because, I'd say, of people's respective arts but simply because they were young, disrespectful punks to begin with before they started training anywhere.

Posted by: IExcalibui2

Re: The inadequacies of MMA training. - 07/18/07 02:17 AM

so I return to the forums...wow this thread is still going on...and though I wish I could re-read all these posts I'm a bit too lazy and its late

so I think MMA training is beneficial! Its good for the soul, like chicken noodle soup. And just because the 3 letters MMA come up doesnt mean it will automatically mean 2 guys ending up on the ground. IT just means you learn to defend, attack and counter from all ranges (kicking, punching, clinch, & ground).

You can train in Karate all your life but you can still be training MMA.

The inadequacies of MMA training.