The State of the Martial Arts

[Bill Glasheen]

I don't buy the arguments.

Bill, MMA is not a fad, it's here to stay, and may take the lead And when the next generation of youth becomes the majority, the bread earners, I fear TMA may face hard times. I dont say this with happiness, im pretty much a TMAist. Just that it will happen.

I don't doubt that it's here to stay. But really now... It isn't anything brand new. It's really a further evolution of the full contact sport arena. You take grappling (judo, wrestling, whatever) and striking (full contact karate, thai boxing, western boxing) and put them together, and you have what people call MMA.

My first MA instructor was a MMA. He was Japanese and a dan in both judo and karate. He first started teaching me in 1972. My third MA instructor was a MMA. He taught me in the mid 1980s. He was a judo, kyokushinkai, goju, aikido, kobudo guy who did time in the green berets. He taught me Goju and aikido - at the same time.

It is evolutionary, and NOT revolutionary. It will continue to evolve. It will soon be no big deal.

It is a "fad" now because a certain genre of people brought public attention to the practice. The interest will peak and then wane a bit - like most things.

The reason MMA won't leave the spotlight is because it's fixing what is wrong with TMA.

There's nothing wrong with TMA. It is what it is. Nothing more, and nothing less.

A lot of people claim that grappling is in karate (and then proceed to get ripped in half by MMAers ).

Apples and oranges.

You want to compare young people willing to go in the ring with the average person who practices TMA? As I have stated many times before, there is a serious selection bias problem here. Right now I have more people over the age of 40 as students than young ones - because of where I now teach. You think these folks will EVER want to go in the ring? Of course not. Meanwhile... Way back when I first started studying martial arts (dark ages...), it was my understanding that people retired from Thai boxing at around age 26. Quit. Finished...

Another thing... MMA is ONLY about the dual. Period. End of story. I spent probably half my randori time in aikido (being taught by a green beret) with 3 (or more) on 1. It's an entirely different ball of wax. You never, ever, ever go to the ground. Not uless you want the schit kicked out of you...

Many TMA schools became so wrapped up in tradition and heritage that they thought anything not in their katas was unecessary.

I never hung around this crowd. My hero in the 1970s was Mr. Everything Bob Campbell. That guy forgot more styles than I ever remembered. And the Cambridge/Hancock street dojo was one of the best fighting dojos in the country at the time.

Many styles managed to come up with a lot of nonsensical movements and attacks because they were never tested against someone who didn't care about your blackbelt.

This happens to any art where you don't do kumite.

Time to shave off the BS with some trial by fire. MMA is the fix for all of the missing information.

Yes and no...

TMA is TMA. It doesn't pretend to be sport karate, military karate, or karate aerobics.

MMA can't teach you multiple partner scenarios. If anything, you'll have to unlearn a LOT of stuff to make it when attacked by a gang. I'd a LOT rather study traditional Japanese jiujitsu (such as Sosuishitsu Ryu which Rory studies) than BJJ if I want to learn to make it either on the street or in the military.

MMA can't teach you about the force continuum.

MMA can't teach you about fighting and the law.

MMA can't be practiced beyond a certain age, or under a certain age.

It is a niche where we send some of our best warriors to duke it out. But it doesn't translate to the average practitioner, to RBSD, to the military, to health, etc.

It is what it is.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

As they say, a picture is worth 1000 words. This can be found on Marc "Animal" MacYoung's No Nonsense Self-Defense site.

- Bill



It's useless making these comparisons when A never was intended to be B.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Rory has a nice "matrix" he put together which covers this. I'm not sure when he's going to publish though... I got to see a rough draft of parts of it at camp.

I think more and more people who have been around various aspects of this business for a while appreciate the differences.

- Bill

[Stryke]

fad

a temporary fashion, notion, manner of conduct, etc., esp. one followed enthusiastically by a group.

MMA is a study of matrices , just a study , and just a section of what you wish to make it like karate ... however ....

You kind of argue it`s been around all along Bill , then argue it`s a fad , maybe you just think folks will get bored with it .

the reality is it`s more martial than most TMA , your post indicate you think most Karates like turning a sword into a plough huh

not very ethical calling it a martial( fighting wartime etc) art , be honest if you`ve evolved it into something else .

Apples and oranges.

You want to compare young people willing to go in the ring with the average person who practices TMA? As I have stated many times before, there is a serious selection bias problem here. Right now I have more people over the age of 40 as students than young ones - because of where I now teach. You think these folks will EVER want to go in the ring? Of course not. Meanwhile... Way back when I first started studying martial arts (dark ages...), it was my understanding that people retired from Thai boxing at around age 26. Quit. Finished...

Another thing... MMA is ONLY about the dual. Period. End of story. I spent probably half my randori time in aikido (being taught by a green beret) with 3 (or more) on 1. It's an entirely different ball of wax. You never, ever, ever go to the ground. Not uless you want the schit kicked out of you...

now you make the huge leap that MMA is always just the sport , where you earlier define it as a concept , which one Bill , did you and your green berat do MMA or did you compete in the UFC ? .

how about MMA as an approach , and why the excuses about skill level , do you beleive the average TMA practitioner not capable of learning a cross section type skillset ? , I dont buy that for a second .

Write Hanshi McCarthy and email and see if he beleives that his Koryu students are all athletes and competitors .

The too physically hard excuse is just that , any programm can be adapted by a skilled teacher to bring along folks at there own pace , I`ve never fought MMA , but I study the concept , and skillset and so can anyone else .

the only damage MMA does to traditional MA , is seperate the wheat from the chaff , it forces folks to examine there abilitys , good stuff is goodstuff , and most MMA guys have a long background in many arts , and they`ll look at TMA done well , in fact thats the point .

if it doesnt stand up , well I dont think that concerns them , but lots of waded pantys from the guys trying to sell ploughs as swords .

[mhosea]

Write Hanshi McCarthy and email and see if he beleives that his Koryu students are all athletes and competitors .

To my thinking MMA is a thing in and of itself, a style of fighting limited by and evolving according to the rules of MMA competition. To me it seems like misdirection to ask Patrick McCarthy about Koryu Uchinadi students. Teaching a collection of TMAs together as such (as in Koryu Uchinadi) does not make modern MMA. The term means something more specific than just literally "mixed martial arts". I know that Wikipedia is not really an argument settler, but just read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_martial_arts

It looks like these guys would call Koryu Uchinadi a "hybrid martial art". At any rate, the same distinction exists in my mind as well.

[Stryke]

whatever makes you more comfortable , I was using Bills (and my own )definition .

at the end of the day , a rose by any other name ......

Misdirection ?, very relevant IMHO to how one approaches a broad aspect of material , and cross training . I think the labels not as important as the concept and approach .

MMA only a sport , sure if it`s only a sport , like karates only tai chi type stuff in the park (and tai chi`s not only that anyway )

[Stryke]

too clarify , my basic position is the very same as Bills , but where as he thinks no change will come about because it`s a valid long term concept , I beleive gradual change its inevitable because it`s a valid long term concept .

the side line being folks cannot endure such Mixed Martial arts , that I beleive is fundamentally flawed , but were getting into the MMA as a sport vs MMA as a concept definitions .

Ideas are the only things that really change anything .

[mhosea]

whatever makes you more comfortable

I'm not interested in definitions that make me or you "comfortable", rather what the widely accepted definitions of terms being used really are.

[Stryke]

thats the real problem isnt it ? , the focus on the definitions rather than the substance ?

would you like to discuss the position I have ?

is your position really mixed martial arts is not mixed martial arts ?

can we not agree there is a sportive element grown out of the concept , and the concept itself ?

not really interested otherwise , definitions are the very uglyness of this kind of discussion , it`s always this or that , where as it`s as Bill posted a crossover .

My position that a greater crossover and mixing will only bring higher education and standards across the board , and only pressure groups that have a lack of substance or are blatantly fraudulent in there claims .
I only see this as hurting TMA if it is bad practice . ie bad TMA

not interested in misdirection or semantics , or oxford dictionary definitions , just articulating a point of veiw .

[mhosea]

You know, on second thought (or third or fourth as the case may be), forget it.

[NEB]

BUT....i made the mistake of putting MMA fighters on pedestals for a while.

Lets not forget, that what we see in the UFC/PRIDE is the best of the best.


Bas rutten once said on is forum"If you ever fight a good full-contact karate fighter, dont stand with him, their good! Take him down!"

Now that statement is in the context of how well a karateka can stand and fight.

I have been having conversations (as have we all, I presume) with my teacher on how to deal with an expert in grappling. I may not be a very tough guy ... over 40 with about 7-8 years of training and a love of home-made beer; but I'll volunteer to get my ass kicked by anyone in a good jiyu kumite anytime.

Its true that what we see on TV represents the highest level of MMA. BUT ... IMHO they don't have much to show for themselves up on their feet...save for a select few. Take Tito Ortiz and pit him up against any good boxer within his weight (maybe Miguel Cotto or Ricky Hatton?) in a stand-up only fight and I'd bet some real money he'd get bested easily.

Or any of them for that matter.

MMA (to me) = mediocre stand-up combined with excellent grappling. I don't say this to be cheeky, its just that I have yet to see anyone that can really fight with their fists doing their thing in the "octagon". There have been plenty of fights where both participants wished to stay vertical, and therefore battled it out upright but were nowhere NEAR showing the skill a decent pair of boxers show.

Just my own $.02

nb

[Stryke]

MMA (to me) = mediocre stand-up combined with excellent grappling. I don't say this to be cheeky, its just that I have yet to see anyone that can really fight with their fists doing their thing in the "octagon". There have been plenty of fights where both participants wished to stay vertical, and therefore battled it out upright but were nowhere NEAR showing the skill a decent pair of boxers show.

It`s a matter of horses for courses , it really just shows that only pure boxing skills wont dominate in such an all round battle .

Leg kicks grqppling

its just that I have yet to see anyone that can really fight with their fists doing their thing in the "octagon".

you should check out Pride , check out Mirko Cocrop now he`s hit the UFC

Mirko`s probably the best striker (as in legs also) on the planet

sure it`s not a boxing match , but it just goes to understanding

the real issue is not the qualty of strikers not being good enough , but simply how in an overall context theres a lot more to it .

If better strikers can prevail , then better strikers will prevail

I think there are some excellent strikers in MMA , rules and gloves etc do change the percpetion though .

[Stryke]

You know, on second thought (or third or fourth as the case may be), forget it.

what no more misdirection mate ?

apologies for the whatever makes you comfortable jibe , guess I just got highjacked at that point .

[TSDguy]

BUT....i made the mistake of putting MMA fighters on pedestals for a while.

Lets not forget, that what we see in the UFC/PRIDE is the best of the best.


Bas rutten once said on is forum"If you ever fight a good full-contact karate fighter, dont stand with him, their good! Take him down!"

Now that statement is in the context of how well a karateka can stand and fight.

Exactly. This is the most obvious example of how MMA points out the flaws in TMA training. I'm not arguing TMA should go to hell, but that it should adapt to what MMA has shown us. Then call that new improved product MMA or TMA or whatever you want.

[Bill Glasheen]

BUT....i made the mistake of putting MMA fighters on pedestals for a while.

Lets not forget, that what we see in the UFC/PRIDE is the best of the best.


Bas rutten once said on is forum"If you ever fight a good full-contact karate fighter, dont stand with him, their good! Take him down!"

Now that statement is in the context of how well a karateka can stand and fight.

Exactly. This is the most obvious example of how MMA points out the flaws in TMA training. I'm not arguing TMA should go to hell, but that it should adapt to what MMA has shown us. Then call that new improved product MMA or TMA or whatever you want.

I couldn't disagree more!!!



You are measuring TMA in the context of "sport MMA." Sorry... Not for a second am I going to engage in protracted ground battles with someone on the street or in the battlefield if:

1) A weapon is involved,

2) Another partner is there.

If I'm going to fight in the Octagon or similar venue, then that venue will dictate that I learn a good ground game. I'm going to work with my buddy Joey and learn to be comfortable playing a chess match on the ground until I find the appendage of my choice (including the head/neck) and start cranking on it. I'm going to practice my shooting skills. (Believe it or not, I have a Sanseiryu bunkai where that move is practiced.) Etc., etc.

Let's back up a bit.

The antecedent to a lot of this activity is Japanese jiujitsu. The context was the battlefield where many warriors were duking it out. A samurai on occasion would find himself with a broken blade. Maybe he could keep the battle going with the short sword. Or just maybe he fell, or lost both blades. Never say die, right? It was this scenario where jiujitsu became relevant.

IN THIS CONTEXT... A protracted ground battle was out of the question. One might even say that "this is the most obvious example of how [TMA] points out the flaws in [MMA] training."

Old school jiujitsu is some nasty schit. You are trying to off someone. You aren't looking for a ref to bail your opponent when he taps out.

Let's take another context. Let's take the context of the armed warrior. In my state and others, concealed carry is the law. I carry my card with me 24/7, and can carry as well. I also know that others may or may not be carrying. IN THIS CONTEXT... distance is my friend. One might even say that "this is the most obvious example of how [RBSD] points out the flaws in [MMA] training."

Just to be clean enough in my expose to pass the muster of Marcus' critique...

What we have with "sport MMA" is a cross between grappling, striking, and sport in the context of a dual. It is a tiny niche in the greater martial arts world.

My son just finished his second season as an NCAA wrestler. (8-2, BTW...). This Olympic-style wrestling is a sport MA of a sort. The desired end is very different from "sport MMA" is very different from Western boxing is very different from Grecko Roman wrestling is very different from Sambo is very different from fencing is very different from the biathlon. Each is a unique and fascinating martial art with some historical context. But they are all semi-cooperative venues where rules are enforced and a referee makes sure nobody cheats.

When my buddy Rich works with his boys in Quantico, do you think they spend a lot of time teaching those Marines how not to "cheat"? Character is important, for sure. But as they say, everything ultimately is fair in love and war.

When a LEO faces a BG, does he cry foul before he hauls the perp off in schackles? None of them want the formal funeral. Let that happen to the BG.

And when I go out the door prepared to use striking, grappling, emotional intelligence, mindset, and higher levels of the force continuum, I have the laws of society to contend with. I do want to come home, but I'd prefer a bed at home rather than in a jail cell.

Context is everything.

Let's make one thing clear. We all like to watch sporting events. Not a lot of work gets done on Thursday and Friday of this week (in the US) while March Madness is in full swing. And a lot of martial artists can learn a little something by watching superb athletes try some of their tools out with little restraint.

But I'm not the least bit insecure about the many paths I have chosen on my martial journey. And in the broader context, it is a Mixed Martial Art journey. And if you study the lives of many of the great masters, they did the very same thing.

But it isn't the "sport MMA" that seems to be the basis for this discussion.

- Bill