Do not judge TMA just because you're not good at it

[humble_student]

A lot of you are vey vocal about how TMA is ineffective in this times, and there are grains of truth in there. But please do not judge TMA overall as ineffective and not worth the time, just because you did not find it applicable to you. You may never know the time when you will get beaten by one.

Peace to all martial arts.

[Tom Yum]

TMA is more about the development of the whole person, rather than fighting alone. Its going to take a longer time in the TMA to learn how to fight; it doesn't mean TMA-ists can't fight.

Some have used their skills successfully - be it against a drunken idiot or on the battlefield, behind enemy lines.

The real issue with TMA is McDojo-ism, which is a recent thing happening in the past 20 or so years.

Teaching techniques that haven't been tested under fire and then saying that said techniques are too deadly for the ring, while teaching students watered down point kickboxing.

Some old-school Karate, Tae kwon do and gong fu training included fighting and full-contact sparring. The immigrants who came to the U.S. taught it this way, but people didn't like it. Even worse, some of the school owners were put out of business because of injury-related lawsuits. So the MA student himself is partially to blame for Mc Dojoism.

The other reason are a few charlatains.

[DickHardman]

yeah, i train in muay thai and jiu jitsu. both arts have very deep traditions that date back thousands of years. i dont like it when people say traditional martial arts dont work, when they are used even in mma matches today. muay thai, jiu jitsu, wrestling are all traditional arts and they are quite effective.

[Troll Virus]

You may never know the time when you will get beaten by one.

Styles don't beat styles.
People beat people.
Sometimes their training has an influence on the result.
Oftentimes it doesn't.

There's something to be learned from everything.
TMA, MMA, RBSD.....whatever.

The name is not the thing.

[Tom Yum]

yeah, i train in muay thai and jiu jitsu. both arts have very deep traditions that date back thousands of years. i dont like it when people say traditional martial arts dont work, when they are used even in mma matches today. muay thai, jiu jitsu, wrestling are all traditional arts and they are quite effective.

This is true.

[Uke]

Styles don't beat styles.
People beat people.
Sometimes their training has an influence on the result.
Oftentimes it doesn't.

There's something to be learned from everything.
TMA, MMA, RBSD.....whatever.

The name is not the thing.

This is a popular school of thought, and I agree with it to some degree.

However, if a style has little influence on a result, how do you explain the success of BJJ players in NHB? At one point, they clearly dominated every NHB tournament. How do you explain the weapon proficiency of FMA practitioners? I don't know if you've ever studied FMA or any other weapon system, but a man trained in weapons is a lot different than a man who just has a weapon and wants to fight.

I won't go as far as to say that it the system that wins fights, as it has to be the individual. I won't even say that practitioners use their system when really fighting. Their reflexes and responses will be based on and reflect their previous training. That's it.

But I think that after spending some time observing, you will see that students from particular schools become better fighters. When one school begins bringing home all the championships, its becomes clear that its what the school is teaching that makes champions, not who comes to the school to learn.

[DickHardman]

even RAMBO said that the most dangerous weapon is your mind.

[Troll Virus]

This is a popular school of thought, and I agree with it to some degree.

However, if a style has little influence on a result, how do you explain the success of BJJ players in NHB?

Simply.
It's not so much WHAT you train, but HOW you train it.
Gearing training to a particular objective, means you work on the attributes which prove to be successful 'for that objective'.

Not everyone is training with the same OBJECTIVE in mind though.

But I think that after spending some time observing, you will see that students from particular schools become better fighters. When one school begins bringing home all the championships, its becomes clear that its what the school is teaching that makes champions, not who comes to the school to learn.

You're comparing training environments here.
People gravitate to the kinds of training that suit their objectives best.
That gravitation is going to lead them to the environment best suited to their needs.
Within that environment, the hardest training and most gifted INDIVIDUALS will naturally rise to the top, succeeding in their OBJECTIVE.

[Tom Yum]

But I think that after spending some time observing, you will see that students from particular schools become better fighters. When one school begins bringing home all the championships, its becomes clear that its what the school is teaching that makes champions, not who comes to the school to learn.

Fighters are made.

I can agree with this.

[Uke]

Simply.
It's not so much WHAT you train, but HOW you train it.
Gearing training to a particular objective, means you work on the attributes which prove to be successful 'for that objective'.

Not everyone is training with the same OBJECTIVE in mind though.

Very good point. But when the objective is winning under a set amount of rules, the objective becomes the same and a school that produces winners will be the school that most will lean towards either joining or emulating.

You're comparing training environments here.
People gravitate to the kinds of training that suit their objectives best.
That gravitation is going to lead them to the environment best suited to their needs.

Actually I'm not discussing environments at all. I'm discussing the quality of what a school teaches, and the most important and telling evidence of that quality: The students.

You're mistaken about people gravitating toward what is best suited to their needs. Ignorance to what is out there and available is largely to blame. For instance, BJJ existed and was practiced long before the UFC, yet very few Americans knew about it. Very few Americans knew about Krav Maga until recently. Very few Americans know about WWII combatives. If people decide that they want to make the most out of what is available locally, that's their choice, but don't confuse that with people going out and finding what is best suited for their objectives.

Within that environment, the hardest training and most gifted INDIVIDUALS will naturally rise to the top, succeeding in their OBJECTIVE.

Are you grouping "hardest training" and "most gifted" together? Because if not, then that statement isn't true. There are tons of people who are extremely gifted that never make it to the top because of a weaker work ethic and determination.

I have to point that out because you can't determine who will be more gifted when they walk through the door, but if your school and curriculum is structured a certain way, you can make sure that all of your students have an excellent work ethic.

Still, that is not to say that some systems aren't superior to others when it comes to the quality and thought put into technique.

[DickHardman]

having a good instructor is important too inmop. i good instructor that you feel cares in your development and that you enjoy training under can make a huge difference in how you end up as a martial artist. a bad instructor could totally put people off to training or hinder their potential.

[Uke]

having a good instructor is important too inmop. i good instructor that you feel cares in your development and that you enjoy training under can make a huge difference in how you end up as a martial artist. a bad instructor could totally put people off to training or hinder their potential.

Amen. I know karate sensei's that have kicked kids in the groin and layed out adult students just to "prove" that what they did worked. I also know and have witnessed high ranking teachers hurt people for asking questions. Its almost as if they take it as someone questioning the effectiveness, when in reality its someone trying to get a better understanding.

I have no respect for teachers like that.

You don't beat up your students.

[Troll Virus]

[QUOTE=Uke;264168]

Actually I'm not discussing environments at all. I'm discussing the quality of what a school teaches

Which is part of the environment yes?

You're mistaken about people gravitating toward what is best suited to their needs. that's their choice, but don't confuse that with people going out and finding what is best suited for their objectives.

You'll often find that the people at the top in any field have done just that.
They've gone out and found what they needed. Hence gravitate.

Are you grouping "hardest training" and "most gifted" together?

Not in the sense that you go on to describe, but then isn't success usually a result of a combination of the two?

[Uke]

[QUOTE=Troll Virus;264217]

Which is part of the environment yes?

I don't see how you're making the connection between environment and a system of martial arts.

environment: The circumstances or conditions that surround one; surroundings.

I'm not comparing surroundings or conditions. I am speaking about systems of combat and how specific systems have proven to work better for certain situations.

You'll often find that the people at the top in any field have done just that.
They've gone out and found what they needed. Hence gravitate.

Yes, but we are not talking about top people. We're speaking about the majority, not the minority. There are more average practitioners than there are elite in any field. And my point is that most people DO NOT even investigate to know what is best for their objectives, let alone go travel to experience it. That still holds true.

Not in the sense that you go on to describe, but then isn't success usually a result of a combination of the two?

No, its not. There are a lot of athletes that aren't as gifted as some, but they still surpass the gifted ones because of an intense work ethic. Sure, if you both gifted and have a intense work ethic, you'll go further. But that wasn't the point I made. I had to separate the two because you can't choose who is and isn't gifted. You can foster an intense work ethic in someone if you catch them young, or if they have the desire but not the skills and know-how.

Talent just means that you don't have to try as hard because of gifts that you didn't have to work for, which fosters a lazy attitude without the right guidance.

[Troll Virus]

I don't see how you're making the connection between environment and a system of martial arts.

environment: The circumstances or conditions that surround one; surroundings.

I'm not comparing surroundings or conditions. I am speaking about systems of combat and how specific systems have proven to work better for certain situations.

They're 'part & parcel'
Different systems often have different environments, by which I'm not talking about what the floor is made out of.
There's the ratio of time dedicated to functional and non-functional practice for one thing.
The quality of instruction another.
The availability of training partners who can stretch your ability yet another.
These are all part of the environment.

Yes, but we are not talking about top people. We're speaking about the majority, not the minority. There are more average practitioners than there are elite in any field. And my point is that most people DO NOT even investigate to know what is best for their objectives, let alone go travel to experience it. That still holds true.

My context was SUCCESS.
So yes, I was talking about "top people".
Isn't the aspiration of the majority,to be "top people"?

No, its not. There are a lot of athletes that aren't as gifted as some, but they still surpass the gifted ones because of an intense work ethic.

You just agreed with what I said;

isn't success usually a result of a combination of the two?