Most important part of learning

[SoCo KungFu]

TMCA has proven itsself for thousands of years. no point here

I don't care about the rest of the argument between you two. But this point right here I have to address.

1) I'm going to grant you the benefit of the doubt in the above, it could be argued but its irrelevant to the next point that is more important.

2) What TCMA has done 2000, 1000, 50, 10, 5 years ago means absolutely nothing. If it is not viable TODAY, then it will die. That is simple and basic adaptation. This is where it is failing quite miserably. Its been years now that people have been shouting that MMA is a fad. No, its here to stay. That is reality. The nature of self defense is changing, that is reality. Either TCMA (or any other TMA for that matter) changes or it goes extinct.

Evolution trends toward the most efficient use of energy output vs gain. Dogmatically clinging to the energetically inefficient (low probability) techniques for the simple sake of tradition, does not produce positive fitness. Even if by some chance, some exceptional few, can make them work...that's still simply an example of specialization. Want to know what happens in nature to specialists? They get out competed by the generalists that can occupy any niche. Well not any, but you get the idea.

This isn't just an issue of TMA. Its rampant in politics, morals, religion...you name it.

TDLR: Either it works TODAY, demonstrably so, or it dies. End of story. Right now, its dying. And that's a shame, because as someone who also studied northern mantis as my first style of martial arts, it was fun. For a time. But there's a very obvious flaw in TCMA. And very very few are addressing it.

[EarthDragon]

) What TCMA has done 2000, 1000, 50, 10, 5 years ago means absolutely nothing. If it is not viable TODAY, then it will die.

I believe TCMA is still very viable and still loved by many even the non fighters competitors there will always be people whom study the Chinese arts as well as every other art.

Its been years now that people have been shouting that MMA is a fad. No, its here to stay. That is reality. The nature of self defense is changing, that is reality. Either TCMA (or any other TMA for that matter) changes or it goes extinct.

I would not say its a fad either but lets be real MMA is just that MMA mantis has 14 style in it I consider that MMA. mixing styles together is not a recent/modern thing.

Evolution trends toward the most efficient use of energy output vs gain. Dogmatically clinging to the energetically inefficient (low probability) techniques for the simple sake of tradition, does not produce positive fitness.

agreed, however every style has inefficient tech. but any excersize produces positive fitness.

TDLR: Either it works TODAY, demonstrably so, or it dies. End of story. Right now, its dying. And that's a shame, because as someone who also studied northern mantis as my first style of martial arts, it was fun. For a time. But there's a very obvious flaw in TCMA. And very very few are addressing it.

It will never die, it may have changed but ti will not die. Perhaps if there was better teachers not giving aw3ay sashes and wearing silk pj doing forms then it woud be tightened up and higher standards for testing came into place, also accreditation you have a lot of unskilled so called sifu out there teaching with inadequate fighting experience Turing out sub par students. but the same can be said for all arts not just the TMCA

[RenDaHai]

Detractors of TCMA take heed:

What is your suggestion then?

Does the existence of TCMA actually make you angry? Do you want it all destroyed or something?

You are basing the utility of Martial Arts on a very specific situation:

2 people who both WANT to fight
Against a single opponent in a controlled environment
Without FEAR of death/prosecution/friends or family in danger or any consequences
Who's goal/need is the winning of the fight and Vanity and Reward
Who can only WIN by destroying the opponent
Who are both subject to the SAME rules, which they KNOW beforehand.

When none of these conditions are in place do you really think exactly the same methods apply? This should question whether the techniques and tactics you use are always going to be better than TCMA. Don't just skim the above conditions, think about their implications, especially on the mental state of the fighter.



Secondly Martial Arts is not brawling. The perfect Martial Art is one which can defeat its opponent without harming him. I realise this is possible with submission, and Jiujitsu is a great traditional art for this. Does this principle apply to your view of Martial Arts?


Thirdly, Not all people are aggressive or have the ability to commit violence, but they can still use Martial Arts to defend themselves. Some people will find an opening but will pull their punch short before hitting its target because of the psychological difficulty in hitting another person. Do you think MMA is a good art for them? Do you realise they might even be in the majority of people?


Fourthly, The utility of an art is entirely in your mind. You can apply it however your mind is capable of abstracting. Many people will go through their lives without actually fighting. Their time spent MA needs to be applied to their life in many other ways. Is Mediation useless? TCMA are Martial Arts but many of them are used as a launching pad for deeper philosophies and for many this is a major part of their art. What is the goal of your training? Should it make you less inclined or more inclined towards violent behaviour?

[Bacon]

big news to wqho? CNN but may I ask from where are you getting your information from the UFC? do you follow e3very sport fight in the world? and what do you mean by high level?

Don't have to, it would be front page news in any full contact fight org if a TCMA guy was suddenly tearing through opponents. And the burden of proof is on you to prove that they exist, not me to prove that they don't.

And by high level I mean full of good competitors. There's full contact fighting competitions which have better competitors than others. The UFC happens to be the most high level organization at the moment but there are others like Bellator for example or even defunct organizations like Pride and Pancrase. The best competiton are found in the high level orgs where you'll find a smattering of folks who win on a regular basis against oth high level competitors and you find folks with track records (some pretty stellar ones too) as NCAA wrestlers, pro kickboxers and Thai boxers, bjj blackbelts, etc. They are and they beat guys with incredible full contact records.

I agree and disagree while there may be SOME things that just dont work, like in all MA there are way more that do but thats depending on the individual. I can make things work that maybe someone else cant and visa versa.

Good for you but no one thus far has been able to make TCMA techniques, ones that aren't found and better in other arts like kickboxing and the like, work against high level competition. There have been no TCMA guys winning high level competitons.

TMCA has proven itsself for thousands of years. no point here

It went on great for a long time but seems to have faltered in the past few decades, likely because of the kind of complacency you're pushing right now. Before TCMAers were gung ho to fight and win. Now you're content to sit on the sidelines.

agree but why single out TMCA in that list I train the way I fight I do TMCA, you cant say better based on the art its the individual I know TKD people that can beat up karate guys and so forth its not the art its how you execute it.

You may fight the way you train TCMA but no one who does that has ever beat high level competiton. I know TCMA isn't the only one. There are similar issues with other arts but we are discussing TCMA and you've been trying to defend an indefensible position and now you and others are starting to back up and go to things like "but other arts can't win too so why are you picking on TCMA."
And yes there have been a few judoka, karateka, capoeraists, TKDers in high level competition so good for them. Because it's not about whether kickboxing is better than muay Thai or if bjj is better than wrestling. They all have very similar techniques and training methodologies and they're the ones who succeed in high level competitions.

There are criticisms I level at judo which are why you generally only find Olympic level judoka like Karo Parisian and Ronda Rousey succeeding with judo waza in high level competitions. So it's not just TCMA but TCMA is one of the worst because there are constantly people going on about how its a good method of fighting when it fails the litmus test of fighting arts.

If there's no basis why is it still taught and why are millions of people still doing it. again this is your personal opinion and why are you still training in a style that you say hasd no basis?

There was a basis way back when there was a fire under the collective backside of TCMAers. Back when they trained to win and constantly tested themselves against the best competitors they could find in order to be the best instead of sitting on their collective backsides. I said Joel was a crap fighter who lost to nobodies from a time when the talent pool wasn't exactly stellar and that's the truth. But the one thing I give him credit for, even with him being a comparatively crap fighter, is that he tried. That's more than 99% of the TCMA community and THAT is the saddest part.

I train it because there are a few techniques and principles that can be useful but they have to be trained with a different methodology than TCMA uses currently.

again personal POV, this measn nothing to others......also effective for what? you said you dont compete so why do you care if it works or doesnt work for other people

Effective for full contact fighting. I do compete but not as regularly as I'd like to. And it's about improvement. It's about what works best. It's about that strive toward perfection in martial arts not just for me but for everyone and having people dogmatically clinging to training methods, techniques, and principles which don't work hinders that goal.

theres watering down in all arts bacon stop trashing 1 out of hundreds.

If they were the subject of this discussion I would be criticizing the exactly the same.

name calling and belittling joel is not called for, I beleive david was speaking of this. unless you fight him and beat him I would consider him much tougher and better than you. so lets just drop the derogatory remarks against someone whom you dont know, thats vary immature

It's not derrogatory to say that he didn't compete against anyone of worth and that he was beaten by fighters who weren't even good for their day. THAT is the shining star of your style, THAT is the best example you've had of a TCMAer in full contact fighting and none of that has any relevance to whether I can beat him or he can be me or if I know him.

I cant say this again ...your basing off your opinion no NO evidence ever. everything you have said is about how you feel. nothing to back it up, no evidence. and yes I am a very stand up nice person, but you gotta present different opinions not just say mines better than yours. otherwise we would all think the same and that would be boring.

Okay then let's break it down to the facts:
Number of TCMAers who've won a full contact world title....ZERO
Number of examples of TCMAers in full contact competitons where the talent pool included very skilled competitors...ONE
Did he beat any of those competitors...NO
Did he face any of those competitors...NO
Number of TCMAers who've beat any full contact fighter or repute...ZERO

Now ask the same questions of wrestling, kickboxing, bjj, muay Thai, boxing, kickboxing, even judo or karateka and you'll get far better numbers and more positive answer.

It's not that my opinion is better than yours. It's that mine is valid as shown by evidence.

[Bacon]

Detractors of TCMA take heed:

What is your suggestion then?

No suggestion. The law of selective fitness takes care of it and what has been happening is the result of TCMA's inadequate methods and complacency. You improve or die.

Does the existence of TCMA actually make you angry? Do you want it all destroyed or something?

Nope but it would be nice if TCMAers would stop making ridiculous and fallacious claims such as "TCMA is just as good/better than kickboxing, wrestling, muay Thai, bjj, etc etc.

You are basing the utility of Martial Arts on a very specific situation:

2 people who both WANT to fight
Against a single opponent in a controlled environment
Without FEAR of death/prosecution/friends or family in danger or any consequences
Who's goal/need is the winning of the fight and Vanity and Reward
Who can only WIN by destroying the opponent
Who are both subject to the SAME rules, which they KNOW beforehand.

When none of these conditions are in place do you really think exactly the same methods apply? This should question whether the techniques and tactics you use are always going to be better than TCMA. Don't just skim the above conditions, think about their implications, especially on the mental state of the fighter.

The same methods of physical fitness, the same techniques, slightly different tactics depending on the situation. Those claiming "yeah but full contact fight are in a ring with a referee and rules and stuff" are the same folks who would lose to a well conditioned, full contact fighter who fights in the ring. The ring is a test of skills and attributes which are also needed for self defence. Also many here have the idea that eye gouging and the like will save them when such techniques are ineffective against a superior grappler/striker and will likely get you thrown in jail for excessive force. TCMA is not the best at teaching the aspects of self defence required beyond simply fighting techniques. There are specialized schools which do that better than TCMA as well.

Secondly Martial Arts is not brawling. The perfect Martial Art is one which can defeat its opponent without harming him. I realise this is possible with submission, and Jiujitsu is a great traditional art for this. Does this principle apply to your view of Martial Arts?

Martial arts is combative combative. Depending on the social, legal, and evironmental circumstances you may need to restrain, KO, etc a hostile individual. The ability to do this in a full contact situation means you have the skills necessary to do this against a well trained, resistant opponent. Transfer those over to a non sport environment and those individuals will still have the advantage 9.9/10

Thirdly, Not all people are aggressive or have the ability to commit violence, but they can still use Martial Arts to defend themselves. Some people will find an opening but will pull their punch short before hitting its target because of the psychological difficulty in hitting another person. Do you think MMA is a good art for them? Do you realise they might even be in the majority of people?

Martial arts is violence. It is codified and systemized but it is violence. If they don't like hitting people they can train jujitsu and wrestling. If they can't bring themselves to hit someone though chances are they're not going to succeed whether it's grappling or striking.

Fourthly, The utility of an art is entirely in your mind. You can apply it however your mind is capable of abstracting. Many people will go through their lives without actually fighting. Their time spent MA needs to be applied to their life in many other ways. Is Mediation useless? TCMA are Martial Arts but many of them are used as a launching pad for deeper philosophies and for many this is a major part of their art. What is the goal of your training? Should it make you less inclined or more inclined towards violent behaviour?

Cut the philosophy garbage. We're talking about combative proficiency here.

[RenDaHai]

No suggestion. The law of selective fitness takes care of it and what has been happening is the result of TCMA's inadequate methods and complacency. You improve or die.

No suggestion? Then leave people to their hobby.

Nope but it would be nice if TCMAers would stop making ridiculous and fallacious claims such as "TCMA is just as good/better than kickboxing, wrestling, muay Thai, bjj, etc etc.

I don't think people are saying that. Their saying it is different and covers different situations.

Those claiming "yeah but full contact fight are in a ring with a referee and rules and stuff" are the same folks who would lose to a well conditioned, full contact fighter who fights in the ring.

Well, yeah, probably. But its not about that is it? He doesn't have to beat him, he has to survive the encounter or avoid the situation. If you always have the confrontational mindset it will bring you far more trouble. The consequences of such an encounter are just as important as the encounter itself. Some people don't want to be well conditioned fighters who fight in the ring. Don't they still have the right to train a Martial Art? Don't you think it should be tailored to them more specifically? What is good for someone who likes to fight a lot won't work for someone who doesn't.

This is the point you don't get. We don't all want to be fighters. For a non fighter mind set a lot of techniques are less than useless and vice versa.

Predatory and territorial violence.

Martial arts is violence. It is codified and systemized but it is violence. If they don't like hitting people they can train jujitsu and wrestling. If they can't bring themselves to hit someone though chances are they're not going to succeed whether it's grappling or striking.

No. Martial arts are the ability to deal with violence and confront it and discipline it. You think the people who can't hit others wo't succeed and the people who can will? Check out the kind of people who go to prison and the kind who live happy lives...

Cut the philosophy garbage. We're talking about combative proficiency here.

Er....NO. Its a huge gigantic element of it from first principles and it also enters combat proficiency. Lets say I am in line in Wallmart buying a kitchen knife and some guy kicks off and pushes me. My most proficient move is to stab him in the bladder with the knife. But thats not what I'm going to do. The philosophy is every bit as part of the violence as the techniques. This is an extreme example but applies accross all decisions.

[Kellen Bassette]

One. Show me one TCMAer in the past 20 years who uses TCMA for striking and grappling, without cross training, who has beaten a high level competor.

Show me one Muay Thai or BJJ fighter in the UFC that doesn't cross train.

For the record, I think Joe Rogan is an idiot.

[Robinhood]

I would like to comment on the phrase high level !

I think this thread is more along the lines of high level of physical conditioning, not high level of skill, they are not the same, most competitions rely on high level of physical conditioning to win, not high level of skill to win, some skill, but it is not the main factor at all compared to importance of conditioning in sport competitions .

If someone has a high level of skill they do not need a high level of physical conditions to be effective, but most competitions rules will not allow efficient effective application because it wouldn't be as entertaining and would also cause many serious injuries . If you don't know how to or can't do any effective moves that only require normal physical
health , then you are more along the lines of low level skill practitioner who needs supplement conditioning for skill.

Competitions are more amount conditioning and endurance , than being an effective martial art. IMO

[Kellen Bassette]

Evolution trends toward the most efficient use of energy output vs gain. Dogmatically clinging to the energetically inefficient (low probability) techniques for the simple sake of tradition, does not produce positive fitness. Even if by some chance, some exceptional few, can make them work...that's still simply an example of specialization. Want to know what happens in nature to specialists? They get out competed by the generalists that can occupy any niche. Well not any, but you get the idea.

I agree with you. I also think TCMA has a lot of great fighting techs and we should focus more on the high probability moves and higher efficiency exercises. I don't think this requires throwing out the traditional elements, just focusing much more on the better material and much less on less effective material.

There should be adaptation to fight modern fighters. TCMA has always done that, up until recently. (Although there are those that do it; and I think Sanda is the natural adaptation of traditional Chinese techs in a modern context.)

[Bacon]

Show me one Muay Thai or BJJ fighter in the UFC that doesn't cross train.

For the record, I think Joe Rogan is an idiot.

I didn't say they don't cross train but if you say a TCMA guy is winning in high level competition and they train kickboxing and bjj then you can't really say they're winning with TCMA. If they're only training TCMA and winning then saying they're winning with TCMA is a valid assessment.
A better comparison would be someone like Anderson silva who does muay thai and BJJ.

[Bacon]

I agree with you. I also think TCMA has a lot of great fighting techs and we should focus more on the high probability moves and higher efficiency exercises. I don't think this requires throwing out the traditional elements, just focusing much more on the better material and much less on less effective material.

There should be adaptation to fight modern fighters. TCMA has always done that, up until recently. (Although there are those that do it; and I think Sanda is the natural adaptation of traditional Chinese techs in a modern context.)

And oddly enough it looks a lot lick what kickboxing and Muay Thai have been doing for quite a while. And as you just pointed out Sanda is a step forward and a non-TCMA.

[Kellen Bassette]

If someone has a high level of skill they do not need a high level of physical conditions to be effective,

They do if they are fighting another skilled fighter. This is the internal vs external philosophy. IMO what stands out about Shaolin, compared with other KF is the conditioning. It's an integral part of the system.

People avoid conditioning because it's hard. KF should be hard.

[Kellen Bassette]

I didn't say they don't cross train but if you say a TCMA guy is winning in high level competition and they train kickboxing and bjj then you can't really say they're winning with TCMA. If they're only training TCMA and winning then saying they're winning with TCMA is a valid assessment.
A better comparison would be someone like Anderson silva who does muay thai and BJJ.

I totally get your point, but it's a useless question because everyone who trains in mma crosstrains. You know that.

[Kellen Bassette]

And oddly enough it looks a lot lick what kickboxing and Muay Thai have been doing for quite a while. And as you just pointed out Sanda is a step forward and a non-TCMA.

Or you could see it as the current evolution of TCMA, does it make a difference?

[Bacon]

I totally get your point, but it's a useless question because everyone who trains in mma crosstrains. You know that.

Yeah but we're not arguining the pros and cons of cross training. We're arguining TCMA's lack of combative proficiency compared to the arts which have shown themselves successful in full contact fighting.

If the mythical successful TCMAer were kickboxing and doing mantis then it would be too easy to dismiss it and say they won because of the kickboxing. If they were only training arts that were TCMA (which is cross training) And they were winning in full contact fighting against high level competitors, then you could say it was solely because of the TCMA.

Or you could see it as the current evolution of TCMA, does it make a difference?

Yes. Other arts were doing it first and TCMA has been pretty ineffective against and compared to those other arts. Then sanda comes along and lo and behold it looks more like those other successful arts than its supposed predecessors in TCMA.