UnderGround Forums
 

TMA UnderGround >> What do you get from TMA?


1/17/07 6:36 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Outkaster
54 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 17-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 571
You can't control your environment but you can control what you do.
1/17/07 9:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Bunkou
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 17-Jan-07
Member Since: 12/16/2004
Posts: 301
In 2004, there were 2,398,365 deaths in the United States. The top fifteen causes were: Diseases of heart 654,092 Cancer 550,270 Stroke 150,147 Chronic lower respiratory diseases 123,884 Accidents (unintentional injuries) 108,694 Diabetes 72,815 Alzheimer's disease 65,829 Influenza and pneumonia 61,472 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis 42,762 Septicemia 33,464 Suicide 31,647 Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 26,549 Essential (primary) hypertension and hypertensive renal disease 22,953 Parkinson's disease 18,018 Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids 16,959 All other causes combined only accounted for 418,810 deaths. What's my point? If you eat at MacDonald's, speed when you drive, or drink excessively, self-defense is the least of your worries.
1/18/07 2:50 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Bunkou
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 18-Jan-07
Member Since: 12/16/2004
Posts: 302
Oh yeah, I forgot to work that into the calculations. You'll have to make allowances accordingly.
1/18/07 9:31 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
GaydarBlane
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 18-Jan-07
Member Since: 08/13/2003
Posts: 6318
"All other causes combined only accounted for 418,810 deaths. What's my point? If you eat at MacDonald's, speed when you drive, or drink excessively, self-defense is the least of your worries." Self defense was brought up as a benefit of TMA, thus it is being discussed.
1/18/07 12:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Bunkou
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 18-Jan-07
Member Since: 12/16/2004
Posts: 303
Yes, I know, and I'm discussing it. My point is, touting MMA as superior to TMA in self-defense is pointless for two reasons: 1) It hasn't been shown to be true. 2) Self-defense isn't a true motivation for practicing any MA whether T or M.
1/18/07 2:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
GaydarBlane
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 18-Jan-07
Member Since: 08/13/2003
Posts: 6333
lol! You have got to be kidding me with #1. You are right? As for #2, that's why TMA schools never advertise for "self-defense", right?
1/18/07 4:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Bunkou
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 18-Jan-07
Member Since: 12/16/2004
Posts: 304
*sigh* Here we go again. #1: I'm not kidding. More people have successfully used TMA for self-defense than MMA. Period. Even arts like kung fu and aikido that most of us think of as worthless have plenty of success stories. But, please, share with me why you think MMA has been proven to be superior for self-defense? #2: Don't misinterpret. I'm not saying no one starts MA for self-defense, many, if not most, do. BUT! First, no one sticks with MA for very long if that's their prime motivator. People train MA because it's fun. Second, reference the above list of causes of death. Looking at that it becomes pretty clear that spending countless dollars and hours practicing self-defense is a waste of time - if that's your only motivation for training.
1/18/07 6:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
GaydarBlane
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 18-Jan-07 06:23 PM
Member Since: 08/13/2003
Posts: 6341
"#1: I'm not kidding. More people have successfully used TMA for self- defense than MMA. Period. Even arts like kung fu and aikido that most of us think of as worthless have plenty of success stories. But, please, share with me why you think MMA has been proven to be superior for self-defense?" And more people by far take TMA than MMA, yes? *sigh* You do understand that would lead to more success stories too. Now let's not even get into the fact that "MMA" has been around for a much shorter time than "TMA" has. Of course for the TMA people that have "had success stories", how much of that success can be attributed to training as opposed to their own natural instincts? Is there video tape evidence we can watch where we will see traditional martial arts techniques being employed? Etc etc It is impossible to logically deduce anything since corralation does not equate causation, and correlation is the only evidence available. Thus, we would be forced to go outside the realm of heresay from media outlets. Let's go the Mixed Martial Arts cage. It is an almost labratory-like environment. True fights are 1-on-1 and do not involve weapons. True some orginizations have more rules than others. However in such conditions, TMA gets owned by MMA the overwhelming majority of time. This would allow one to conclude that they are better fighters than TMA. If you take this outside the ring, you'd imagine that a superior fighter would be able to apply his skills against multiple opponents or a weapon far better than an inferior fighter who couldn't even apply his skills to somebody 1-on-1 in a controlled environment... I don't know how one could rationally conclude the inverse to that. "#2: Don't misinterpret. I'm not saying no one starts MA for self- defense, many, if not most, do. BUT! First, no one sticks with MA for very long if that's their prime motivator. People train MA because it's fun." Says you, Can you provide any research that verifies that people don't stick with it long if self defense is their prime motivator? "econd, reference the above list of causes of death. Looking at that it becomes pretty clear that spending countless dollars and hours practicing self-defense is a waste of time - if that's your only motivation for training." And if one eats healthy, exercises regularly, doesn't drink, and drives safely, then you can rule out the majority of those. It wouldn't mean any more or less time to practice MA. The instances you can't are genetic disorders or virusses that'd you get regardless of whether or not you used time that you'd use practicing MA trying to avoid it... That leaves suicide. I guess MA training time could otherwise be better spent... umm... not comitting suicide. You could be right, but thus far you've provided nothing in the way of evidence to prove it. That list certainly doesn't.
1/18/07 10:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Bunkou
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 18-Jan-07
Member Since: 12/16/2004
Posts: 306
FRAT warning! "You do understand that would lead to more success stories too. [etc.]" So do you agree that TMA can be successful in self-defense or not? "Of course for the TMA people that have "had success stories", how much of that success can be attributed to training as opposed to their own natural instincts?" Intellectual dishonesty. The same thing could be said of MMA (perhaps even more so if you believe MMA is more athletic than TMA). Do you really believe a TMA victory is because of attributes and instincts while MMA success is because of training? "Is there video tape evidence we can watch where we will see traditional martial arts techniques being employed?" Actually, yes. Check Google and Youtube, to start with. I've seen many clips posted on this site. Anyone remember the kung fu kid with his girlfriend watching while he does all his hokey chop socky arm flailing (and knocks out his opponent)? Or the cop with the knife hand to the pimp's neck (and quick knock out)? Both great videos of TMA techniques in action, effectively employed by TMAists. Now where are the videos of MMA being used in self-defense? (I jest, I'm quite satisfied that MMA is useful for self-defense. As I've said all along.) "It is impossible to logically deduce anything since corralation does not equate causation, and correlation is the only evidence available." More intellectual dishonesty. You concede that TMA training is correlated to self-defense success. If that is not a causal relationship, what are you proposing? That self-defense success causes TMA training (ridiculous on its face)? Or that another variable causes both outcomes (highly unlikely)? "Thus, we would be forced to go outside the realm of heresay from media outlets. [blah blah the UFC is a simulation of self-defense blah blah]" This is perhaps the greatest example of intellectual dishonesty you show. You discount anecdotal evidence because it doesn't produce the results you want, then propose this amazing leap of logical deduction where you equate skill in MMA with self-defense against multiple opponents and weapons (which are entirely new skill sets requiring different techniques and tactics). Not only does it completely miss the point, but you only consider factors in favor of your hypothesis. To reiterate: the debate isn't about whether TMA beats MMA in an MMA competition. That should be a foregone conclusion (much like TMA would beat MMA in a TMA competition). The concern is whether one is "better" for self-defense, and, if MMA is "better," does that make TMA a non-viable alternative? "I don't know how one could rationally conclude the inverse to that." I didn't. Again, you misrepresent the argument. "TMA is effective" does not equate to "MMA is ineffective" or even "MMA is less effective." "Says you, Can you provide any research that verifies that people don't stick with it long if self defense is their prime motivator?" Yup. In the 20+ years I've been involved in TMA and the 10+ years I've been involved with MMA I've been an instructor at several clubs (for a total of about 15 years with a couple of breaks). I've always made it a point to ask people, via surveys, why they start, why they continue, and why they stop. I've also had other friends in MA do likewise. About 50% of people list self-defense as one of several equal reasons they start. About 30% will list it as a reason for continuing after the first year, but no one as their primary reason. Every year thereafter that percentage drops significantly until after 4 years no one does it for self-defense. That's probably because after that much time, there's little more to learn for practical self-defense. Nevertheless, no one continues to train out of concern for it. "And if one eats healthy, exercises regularly, doesn't drink, and drives safely, then you can rule out the majority of those." You can lessen the chances of some, but that's all, you can't "rule out" any of them. "You could be right, but thus far you've provided nothing in the way of evidence to prove it. That list certainly doesn't." Missed the point. Again. The point is this: you are going to die. Period. The chances of it being from a violent encounter are incredibly small (reference said list for how you are going to die - at the average age of 78). Try thinking of it like this: even without a single day of self-defense training, you are going to live to be 78, and then die of heart disease. So training only for self-defense is a waste of time you could spend doing something productive. Like training for exercise, socialization, or fun. Oh, right, exercise, socialization and fun are the benefits of TMA!
1/19/07 3:50 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Allinthefootwork
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 19-Jan-07
Member Since: 11/16/2004
Posts: 73
At the risk of getting shouted at, I think Bunkou makes an excellent point : Train because you enjoy it. If you are training to become a world champion, then that is one thing, but for 99% of us, training is our release from work/family/all the other shit. So enjoy.
1/19/07 8:18 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
GaydarBlane
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 19-Jan-07
Member Since: 08/13/2003
Posts: 6345
"So do you agree that TMA can be successful in self-defense or not?" Of course, but I don't agree articles in popular media means that TMA techniques were employed in a self defense situation. "Intellectual dishonesty. The same thing could be said of MMA (perhaps even more so if you believe MMA is more athletic than TMA). Do you really believe a TMA victory is because of attributes and instincts while MMA success is because of training?" Incorrect and fallacious argument. We do not have video tape evidence of these "stories" and are thus left guessing as to what actually happenned. We can't look at a tape and see what techniques were utilized in what manner. When watching an MMA match, you can clearly deleniate a technical move vs a pure attribute move. "ctually, yes. Check Google and Youtube, to start with. I've seen many clips posted on this site. Anyone remember the kung fu kid with his girlfriend watching while he does all his hokey chop socky arm flailing (and knocks out his opponent)? Or the cop with the knife hand to the pimp's neck (and quick knock out)? Both great videos of TMA techniques in action, effectively employed by TMAists." My point exactly. The kid doing the hand flaily reverted to just that... hand flailing. If you cut out the openning segment and just watched him fight, you'd assume he was entirely untrained. I haven't seen the cop one. "More intellectual dishonesty. You concede that TMA training is correlated to self-defense success. If that is not a causal relationship, what are you proposing? That self-defense success causes TMA training (ridiculous on its face)? Or that another variable causes both outcomes (highly unlikely)?" More fallacious arguments. Are there people that train TMA that get beat up on the street? Yes. Are there people that train TMA that don't get beat up on the street? Yes. Based on this evidence, is it not fallacious to say that when a TMA person wins a street fight, it is because of TMA. Yes. You can't make that assumption without seeing evidence of it. Somebody taking TMA and the same person winning a street fight is mere correlation like somebody wearing red and somebody winning a street fight. Unless there is evidencve that TMA was used to win said fight, then it is nothing more than correlation and you need to use fallacious arguments to try to tie TMA and success together. "is is perhaps the greatest example of intellectual dishonesty you show. You discount anecdotal evidence because it doesn't produce the results you want, then propose this amazing leap of logical deduction where you equate skill in MMA with self-defense against multiple opponents and weapons (which are entirely new skill sets requiring different techniques and tactics). Not only does it completely miss the point, but you only consider factors in favor of your hypothesis." Incorrect yet again. MMA competition is the only place we will see both methodologies face off for the most part. Instead of taking heresay and conjecture as grounds to draw a logical conclusion from (which is fallacious in and of itself) we can use observable video evidence. As for mutiple opponents and what not, it is without a doubt a logical leap. I just think it is a logical leap to a far greater degree to say a guy who could even successfully beat a single person in a controlled setting will be better equipped than the victor at handling himself in confrontations outside that setting. " didn't. Again, you misrepresent the argument. "TMA is effective" does not equate to "MMA is ineffective" or even "MMA is less effective." It seemed to me you were trying to put them on an even keel which is not true; or at least observable evidence would point to it being incorrect. "Yup. In the 20+ years I've been involved in TMA and the 10+ years I've been involved with MMA I've been an instructor at several clubs (for a total of about 15 years with a couple of breaks). I've always made it a point to ask people, via surveys, why they start, why they continue, and why they stop. I've also had other friends in MA do likewise." You seem to take anecdotal evidence as valid, which it is not. Please show me such surveys, who did them, where were they published, and how were they performed. I'm not disagreeing, but I don't believe making unsubstatiated claims is honest in any way, which is why we are having this discussion... "You can lessen the chances of some, but that's all, you can't "rule out" any of them." Precicely the point. What are you missing? You claim that self defense is the least of ones worries based on that list. If the person already does all those things I mentioned, then what should they be doing instead of training MA for self defense that would help them oversome the things on the list. The answer is nothing since anything else is outside their control, thus they can spend time doing something that is inside their control. "Missed the point. Again. The point is this: you are going to die. Period. The chances of it being from a violent encounter are incredibly small (reference said list for how you are going to die - at the average age of 78)." So you may not die from a violent encounter, that means you shouldn't bother ever training for one. You may never die from heart problems, so why bother keeping in shape? Or is it to mitigate the risk of such problems? "Try thinking of it like this: even without a single day of self-defense training, you are going to live to be 78, and then die of heart disease. So training only for self-defense is a waste of time you could spend doing something productive. Like training for exercise, socialization, or fun." Productive is a very subjective term. What is productive to one is a waste to another. So you are going to live to 78, why not never work out and also drink excessively and drive recklessly? It's a fallacious argument to say doing things to mitigate the risk of one thing is good but mitigating the risk of another is a waste and non-productive. "Oh, right, exercise, socialization and fun are the benefits of TMA!" And a billion other things... Why train TMA? Do something productive. ..
1/19/07 9:03 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Allinthefootwork
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 19-Jan-07
Member Since: 11/16/2004
Posts: 74
Gaydar - "And a billion other things... Why train TMA? Do something productive. .. " If you exercise socialisation and fun out of a hobby, then it is productive. It is certainly no less productive than any other sport. And as we agree that 'proving' a methodology is best for self defence (with all the variables about the defender, attacker and environment to be considered) is going to be very difficult to any level of scientific satisfaction, we should let people make their own choice. If MMA has shown anything, it is that the individuals are more important than the style.
1/19/07 11:18 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
GaydarBlane
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 19-Jan-07
Member Since: 08/13/2003
Posts: 6346
"If you exercise socialisation and fun out of a hobby, then it is productive. It is certainly no less productive than any other sport." What about bike riding and doing rides for cancer, diabetes, aids, etc? I'm merely highlighting the fallacy of the "more productive angle". I don't actually buy it; just want to point it it is subjective. I'm rebutting... not stating. "And as we agree that 'proving' a methodology is best for self defence (with all the variables about the defender, attacker and environment to be considered) is going to be very difficult to any level of scientific satisfaction, we should let people make their own choice. " The evidence surely points in a direction though. Unsubstatiated popular media reports vs actual fights involving participants utilizing each methodology... "If MMA has shown anything, it is that the individuals are more important than the style." Good point. Royce definately would have won all the first UFC's if he had trained Taiji instead of Gracie Jiu Jitsu. If anything, MMA has highlighted that some techniques and training approaches (live sparring, drilling, bag/mitt work, etc) are more practical when it comes to being able to apply learned techniques to a full resisting opponent. It has also highlighted the impracticality of many techniques that break down when full resistance is met.
1/19/07 12:17 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Allinthefootwork
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 19-Jan-07
Member Since: 11/16/2004
Posts: 76
Actual fights using each methodology - MMA fights are two evenly matched individuals, in a pre-set 1 on 1 environment. That doesn't reflect a good response for a young girl when she is accosted on the bus by 300lb drunk, nor a response for that 300lber facing a knife, nor that knife wielder when facing multiple opponents. (Note I accept that the SKILL level required to physically defend oneself in each situation is going to vary hugely - but to accept the tools of the cage fight are going to be the right TACTICS in these situations is silly) "Good point. Royce definately would have won all the first UFC's if he had trained Taiji instead of Gracie Jiu Jitsu." No, you are right it is the training method that assists practicality. But plenty of TMAs spar, train alive etc. And in the cage at present you can find strikers, wrestlers and ground fighters all flourishing. So it can't be just style can it?
1/19/07 12:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
GaydarBlane
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 19-Jan-07
Member Since: 08/13/2003
Posts: 6365
"Actual fights using each methodology - MMA fights are two evenly matched individuals, in a pre-set 1 on 1 environment. That doesn't reflect a good response for a young girl when she is accosted on the bus by 300lb drunk, nor a response for that 300lber facing a knife, nor that knife wielder when facing multiple opponents. (Note I accept that the SKILL level required to physically defend oneself in each situation is going to vary hugely - but to accept the tools of the cage fight are going to be the right TACTICS in these situations is silly)" Never said it was the same tactics, but being able to actually apply techniques and understand the applications of techniques against full resisting opponents is a good start. As for weapons, I'd like to toss that one out. I think the Dog Brothers (who are basically MMA with weapons) have shown the manner in which you need to train with weapons to be able to utilize them. I think we agree that the overwhelmingly vast majority of TMA schools and obviously no straight MMA gyms do this. That leaves multiple attackers, and as I've said, I'll take the guy who can apply his techniques against a fully resisting opponent in a cage over a guy that can't. "No, you are right it is the training method that assists practicality. But plenty of TMAs spar, train alive etc. And in the cage at present you can find strikers, wrestlers and ground fighters all flourishing. So it can't be just style can it?" Lots of TMA places do spar, yes. The problem is that the train within the style. If you are using impractical movements and technqiues, but your opponent is too, then the problem will not be evident until you step outside your kwoon or dojo. Then we must also take into the time that actual sparring is done in comparison to the time taken by doing forms, chi kung, drilling impractical techniques, etc. I don't think it would be incorrect to say that MMA spends a lot more time honing techniques for application in a fully alive manner than does TMA.
1/22/07 6:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
smileythai
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2968
TMA in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtFZBTgyipQ
3/11/07 11:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
taba
40 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11-Mar-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 5704
I'd bodybuild if I really wanted to *avoid* fights.
3/15/07 3:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
hitmeharder
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 15-Mar-07
Member Since: 01/04/2003
Posts: 346
There are a few things that I got from TMA. Good and bad... Good- A good cardio workout Met some good friends. Bad- I was not looking for a good workout Have enought friends! False confidence in defending myself Belief that those who practiced MMA were ignorant fools Never learned to use my hands Learned to slap my kicks not strike with shin Spent countless hours on forms.. Waist of time in my opinion Learned a lot of fancy kicks that are useless Belief that my instructor was the man spent way too much money.... believed that belts has something to do with fighting ability. I now believe that unless you are a child or an out of shape woman TMA are pretty much a waist of time and money. But if you believe that they are doing something for you than go ahead...

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.