What defines a TMA from an MMA?

[john55]

Originally Posted by SirokiFighter

what would you consider it? MMA?

Well it was karate and Judo. Plus they did grappling. So they sparred karate, which i didnt get to see. I did watch them spar Judo which was just to take down and pin. Then I watched them spar grappling which looked exactly like rolling in bjj. While its mixing martial arts, it wasnt really mma because they werent putting it all together per se, at least not from what I saw. I only viewed one class.

[SirokiFighter]

Originally Posted by john55

Well it was karate and Judo. Plus they did grappling. So they sparred karate, which i didnt get to see. I did watch them spar Judo which was just to take down and pin. Then I watched them spar grappling which looked exactly like rolling in bjj. While its mixing martial arts, it wasnt really mma because they werent putting it all together per se, at least not from what I saw. I only viewed one class.

You dont consider this tma?

[john55]

Originally Posted by SirokiFighter

You dont consider this tma?

No, not at all. Look at Joes definition. This was sparring in a full resistance environment. They put you in a circle and sparred until someone won. They also got rid of katas because they thought they were useless. And useless were the exact words I was given by them. The place was definitely not a TMA. Nothing about the class reminded of the TMAs I have done at all.

[Sake Sipper]

Originally Posted by Draven

dude do have anything remotely intelligent to add or are just that inept?

Originally Posted by Sake Sipper

The above are conclusions and interpretations rather than facts. The 'fuedal' era was never "forgotten" and "violence" as manifested in controlled expressions of physical courage and skill has never been seen as iherently negative as a matter of culture in Japan. At the time of the Meiji restoration there was a deliberate and necessary effort at distinguishing the ruling system from the previous Tokugawa Shogunate, but the same factors that tend to make martial prowess and personal courage admired in all cultures did not - of course - cease to exist in Japan. In fact, the (real) 'Last Samurai,' a fella by the name of Saigo Takamori, became a folk hero of the highest order immediately after he was killed by government forces in a futile, violent last stand against the forces of 'modernity' in Japan. The ideal of bushido has always held a strong place in Japanese culture, which is why it was co-opted by the very regime that 'officially' ended the Samurai as a social class in order to motivate their modern army (by allowing common folk who became soldiers to feel as if they were the legitimate inheritors of the bushido tradition) and unify the country.

Your conclusions and generalizations seem to be the product of nothing more than your personal assumptions.

And let me add:

Thanks for insulting me then ignoring my response, you clownish punk.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Sake Sipper

And let me add:

Thanks for insulting me then ignoring my response, you clownish punk.

Well first of let me say I'm truly sorry for insulting you and that while I did not see the above quoted post in reguards to Saigo Takamori he was no more influential then Billy the Kid or Jessie James who are also folk heros, yet we don't see people leaping to imulate them either do we...

While Saigo Takamori did lead several samurai he was an isolated incedient and no other examples are found. Which means only the samurai of the that area rebelled and proved the Imperial Army to be of better quality...

"Financially, crushing the Satsuma Rebellion cost the government greatly, forcing Japan off of the gold standard and causing the government to print paper currency. The rebellion was also effectively the end of the samurai class, as the new Imperial Japanese Army built of conscripts without regard to social class had proven itself in battle. Saigō Takamori was labeled as a tragic hero by the people and on 1889-02-22, Emperor Meiji pardoned Saigō posthumously."

Even then martial arts were dis-favored compared to modern weaponry, "Although they fought for the preservation of the role of the samurai, they used Western military methods, guns and cannons; all contemporary depictions of Saigō Takamori depict him garbed in Western-style uniform. At the end of the conflict, running out of material and ammunition, they had to fall back to close-quarter tactics and the use of swords, bows and arrows."

The facts are jujutsu fell into disfavor, the modernized military of conscript army had guns and cannons and bayonets. Much like the modern western army close-combat was pointless and unlike the movie the Last Samurai the Imperial Japanese Army had breach loaders not black powdered guns and holtser cannons. Even the famous folk hero used bullets and western tactics.

From home

"Japan’s respect for the traditional martial arts was brought to an abrupt end with the arrival of Commodore Perry’s ‘Black Ships’ in Japanese waters in 1853. After centuries of self-imposed isolation (sakoku), Japan found itself outdated, outgunned, and out of its depth with the Western nations. Although the seclusion from the rest of the world had given the Japanese martial arts time to develop into fascinating martial antiques, rich in ritualistic symbolism and spiritualism, they were no match for the devastating firepower of Western nations snooping around its shores demanding special rights and privileges. Commodore Perry’s arrival woke the Japanese out of their false sense of security, and with the Meiji Restoration, they set about rebuilding the nation by drawing on the latest technology and ideas the West had to offer.

This essentially meant that traditional Japanese martial arts such as kenjutsu fell into obscurity due to a lack of perceived practical application. Guns, cannons, and a new conscript army were the order of the day if Japan was to catch up with the rest of the world. The era abounded with catch phrases such as wakon-yosai (Japanese spirit-Western technology) as they strove to educate the masses, arm the nation, and match the West in terms of a new modern civil society.

Kenjutsu, along with the other martial arts, was considered symbolic of the now outdated feudal hierarchy which placed the minority bushi above all other classes, and was thus relegated to the realms of archaic nonsense with no practical use to the newly emerging modern society. With the abolishment of the Bakufu’s military academy the Kobusho in 1866, and the dissolution of han (feudal domains) and the bushi controlled hanko (domain schools) in 1871, martial arts were no longer included as part of the educational curriculum, which was redesigned on western models to educate the masses rather than the privileged few."

I've provided you with source info and even quoted from sources that disprove your arguements to me being wrong. You seem to be focused on the ideas so-called traditional martial arts have not been influenced, adapted and changed with time to achieve their current methods of practice. You also seem to think that you view is correct and that no other information is sufficient to change that view. Even when confronted by the "experts." I seriously question you and anything you say...

[Them's Fighting Words]

Originally Posted by john55

Whether part of the training includes it or not, advancement in TMAs do not rely on being able to actually use your moves against a fully resistant opponent.

Please define a "fully resistant opponant". Because if you believe two men entering a ring and beating the hell out of each other are fighting "fully resistant opponants" than you are wrong. A "fully resistant opponant" is not trying to score, submit nor even knock you out. A "fully resistant opponant" is trying to kill you (often when they are armed). So unless you are killling each other in your school, then you are not training against "a fully resistant opponant". Note that I don't believe students trying to kill each other is necessary for a martial arts school to be effective.

[Them's Fighting Words]

Originally Posted by Draven

Personally I don't like the common TMA definition myself. As has already been said there is allot of gray areas, and in my opinion its not the system but the intentions of those who teach the system that determine were a system lies or what a system is about...

TMAs- Are martial arts drawn from a historic heretage and martial traditon. That can cover Karate as much as Muay Thai, since most traditional martial arts have a ritualized way of conducting practices based on the cultures they were created in. Since muay thai often includes the prefight rituals homage and removing the head circlet, a must under Muay Thai rules.

Sport MAs- Which are practiced to compete in various events, this is essentually a gray area since an art can be a TMA and an SMA at the same time. However, most sport based systems restrict training to the rules of compition. This can avry from Karate or TKD point sparring to BJJ & MMA (which is sport and not a specific martial art).

Combat MAs- Are martial arts that focus on unresticted combat skills, and using whatever work. Again these can vary from considered TMAs like Karate to considered sport MAs like BJJ and may well include none martial art combat systems like LINE training or anyone of various hand-to-hand combatives systems.

I really like these definitions. It probably doesn't mean much coming from a newby like me but +rep.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by Them's Fighting Words

Please define a "fully resistant opponant". Because if you believe two men entering a ring and beating the hell out of each other are fighting "fully resistant opponants" than you are wrong. A "fully resistant opponant" is not trying to score, submit nor even knock you out. A "fully resistant opponant" is trying to kill you (often when they are armed). So unless you are killling each other in your school, then you are not training against "a fully resistant opponant". Note that I don't believe students trying to kill each other is necessary for a martial arts school to be effective.

Fully resistant does not need to mean fighting back. If you need to score by hitting somebody, and they are blocking to their full ability, I believe that is fully resisting, as if you are trying to perform a grapple, and your partner uses all his force to stop you using your move, whilst not necessarily countering it.

[Them's Fighting Words]

Originally Posted by Joemoplata

I think it's much easier than everyone is making it out to be.

Traditional Martial Arts contain Katas.

Kata preforms two primary tasks:
1) to train and condition the body in order to execute effective movement.
2) to discipline the mind and reinforce understadning of a discipline's techniques.

These same things are practiced in MMA's but under different names such as combinations and training drills.

[Nicus]

MMA Gear on MMA-Martial Arts Equipment WebShop,MMA Visit right now !You will not regret!

[Jason]

Originally Posted by Them's Fighting Words

Kata preforms two primary tasks:
1) to train and condition the body in order to execute effective movement.
2) to discipline the mind and reinforce understadning of a discipline's techniques.

These same things are practiced in MMA's but under different names such as combinations and training drills.

I think that is a good point about the combinations and training drills but it's slightly different. Combinations can be directly put into use, such as a 'jab, jab, hook' whereas katas are long 'routines', and can't be just inserted in.

[Them's Fighting Words]

Originally Posted by Joemoplata

Thank you TRI!

In a boxing class I am not considered a good boxer until I can box someone else. I may have the best bag and mitt work in the world, but that doesn't mean I'm good if I can't win a fight in the ring/mat/street.

Same with kickboxing.

Same with Muay Thai.

Same with wrestling.

Same with Judo.

Same with BJJ.

Same with Krav Maga.

Same with RBSD systems.

So next time you are asked to test for your promotion, if you are handed a list of katas you need to perform to get the promotion you are practicing a TMA.

And I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying that's how I define it.

What about if you are asked to perform both katas and combat against an opponant? Is that a TMA or and MMA style?

[Jason]

Originally Posted by Nicus

MMA Gear on MMA-Martial Arts Equipment WebShop,MMA Visit right now !You will not regret!

Go away.

[Them's Fighting Words]

Originally Posted by SirokiFighter

your duys definition of TMA is screwed up.

This is a "MMA vs TMA" thread so it's bound to lose some consistancy with definitions becoming a bit muddled. However, this is probably the best "MMA vs TMA" thread I have yet read and definately the only one I have felt bothered to comment on. So far I'm just keeping Draven's definitions in my head and asking questions to help clarify terms.

[Them's Fighting Words]

Originally Posted by john55

No, not at all. Look at Joes definition. This was sparring in a full resistance environment. They put you in a circle and sparred until someone won. They also got rid of katas because they thought they were useless. And useless were the exact words I was given by them. The place was definitely not a TMA. Nothing about the class reminded of the TMAs I have done at all.

Apart from the lack of katas and the lack of weapons, this pretty much sounds like most TMA's I've engaged in.