The Death of TMA

[1bad65]

To not change is stupid, if you want it to be effective. If you want to not change for the sake of the art itself, its one thing. But if you won't change because you feel one art is complete you are fooling yourself.

Look at the Gracies, in the early to mid 90s BJJ was the art winning most of the NHB/MMA fights. Well when other fighters incorporated the ground game into their arsenal, even the Gracies began to cross-train to stay competitive.

[Mas Judt]

Look at the gracies - the took Judo ne-waza and refined it for their kind of contest. It is a good example of taking the lessons taught and using them creatively in your environment.

'Martial Art' is the only 'art' I have seen where copying and not thinking is sometimes held as the highest standard. (This is of course true to only a sub set of the audience.)

The other major sin is the 'not invented here' syndrome that results in gaps...

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

To not change is stupid, if you want it to be effective

Reply]
Change for the sake of Change alone is not too bright either. If it ain't broke, Don't Fix it!

[1bad65]

Change for the sake of Change alone is not too bright either. If it ain't broke, Don't Fix it!

I think the early UFCs showed many styles were broke.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Agreed....................

[SevenStar]

If anything what has happened is we got away from real fighting, and are now going back to basics. Even "Modern" conditioning is looking more, and more like Old Time strong man training.

It never got away from it. What happened was you guys (general public) didn't know about it because it wasn't in the public eye. college and high school sports programs have been training this way for years. When I played football, we weren't using machines and doing curls, we were benching, squatting, deading, doing cleans, etc. Now what I will say is that some of the more "eclectic" things, like picking up irregular shaped objects have been making a comeback since strongman competitions started gaining popularity, but they were never dead, just unseen by the majority. The majority has seen machines and bodybuilding over the years.

[David Jamieson]

The only constant is change.

If one can't be down with that, then they really don't have much in the way of kungfu. imho.

[Christopher M]

Researching and practicing methods from other periods and/or cultures doesn't make you an "anachronist." In every field of human activity, there is a necessary tension between the past, which represents a storehouse of perspectives and solutions, and the present, which represents the problems facing the contemporary culture. Scientists, artists, and philosophers all seriously study the history of their field for this reason. There's no reason to expect physical culture to be any different.

[Becca]

A while back I was having dinner with another instructor. I had commented on how many things I had modified in my training in response to Bjj/NHB. While it does not change my method, there are some things that are commonly taught that are now irrelevant due to how they (easily) open you up to a counter. The guy just stared at me like I was a nut. From his perspective the art was 'perfected' by it's creator and he'd be a fool to change anything. I shifted topic, and explained how once I had modified a method from SPM to fight some Golden Gloves boxers. It worked great. It used SPM principles, just was not used how I was taught it. Then I covered Sun Tzu - you know, know your enemy, know yourself....

Nontheless he thought I was a fool, and I thought he was a tool.

This is why MOST TMA group are relegated to the same bus as the Society for Creative Anacronism and other re-enactors, versus the martial art bus.

Thoughts?

I think most people who are "traditionalists", who are honest, will admit that they do not use thier techniques exactly the way they do them in a form. The form is an encyclapedia of how those who came before you fought. I beleive you are to learn the metrial and make it your own, but should still take care to pass on the original form in as pure a contex as possible. Just because it is the personal fighting style of someone long dead does not mean it has no merrit or that someone else may be able to beifit from some aspect of the form that you found useless.

[golden arhat]

??????????????

hahahh

lol

[golden arhat]

[QUOTE=Becca;784102]I think most people who are "traditionalists", who are honest, will admit that they do not use thier techniques exactly the way they do them in a form. The form is an encyclapedia of how those who came before you fought. I beleive you are to learn the metrial and make it your own, [QUOTE]

an encyclopedia doesnt tell u how to string a sentence together

[DPL]

an encyclopedia doesnt tell u how to string a sentence together

But a form does show you how to string applications together. Christopher M's post makes the most sense - it's just as much folly to ignore the cumulative, earned knowledge of the past as it is to blindly believe that the 'way of the ancients' cannot be improved. You have to strike a balance.

Studying set forms for new applications is an intensely rewarding experience, both in discovering hidden meanings or new applications you hadn't previously considered, and also in personalizing the form and maybe, hopefully, adding to the accumulated wisdom with your own interpretation.

[Becca]

an encyclopedia doesnt tell u how to string a sentence together

Correct, a teacher does. Just as the form doesn't teach you to fight... The teacher does.


Your point was?

[The Xia]

Aren't you guys sick of TMA vs. MMA threads yet?
If you like what you are doing, and what you are doing works the way it's supposed to, what more can you ask for? What do you care what MMA does or doesn't do?

[Becca]

To not change is stupid, if you want it to be effective. If you want to not change for the sake of the art itself, its one thing. But if you won't change because you feel one art is complete you are fooling yourself...

I think the problem you have with people calling thier art "complete" is a case of either you misunderstanding them, or at some point, them misunderstanding the concept of a complete fighting system.

I was never, ever taught that to be complete was to be stagnet. Not in martial arts, not in work, not in family, and not in life.

complete definition

adj. com·plet·er, com·plet·est
1. Having all necessary or normal parts, components, or steps; entire: a complete meal.

At no point did I find "perfect" in the definition of complete. There fore a complete style of martial arts is not a "perfect" style, but rather a style that has all the necessary parts that the practitioner or founder thought was needed.