3 ms·

They are mostly nonsense because they're not actually effective, and they've been proven ineffective in empirical tests- mixed fights with little to no rulesets

They are mostly nonsense because they're not actually effective, and they've been proven ineffective in empirical tests- mixed fights with little to no rulesets. If you attempted to use Kung Fu to defend yourself against an 'unavoidable situation', you'd very likely lose. Testing in realistic situations- the point of the Deadspin article- is that MMA & its constituent martial arts (Muay Thai, boxing etc.) are what's actually effective. (Did you read the article?) It's like comparing the 'four humours' vs. modern medicine

blackSnake 7y ago
Progressive martial arts evolved out of traditional martial arts. A lot of it has to do with the practitioner himself. The progressive arts like MMA and Jui-Jitsu emphasize the combative aspect of the arts. Tai-Chi for the most part is nowadays mostly practiced for therapeutic benefits BUT I would argue that there are Tai Chi practitioners worth their weight in gold. The question is, what are you training for? If the Tai chi guy isnt sparring and moving around with other guys intensely, big surprise, theyre going to suck in a fight but that does not take away from the legitimacy and depth of the art. Tai chi still has blocks, kicks, strikes, ground grappling counters, standing grappling counters, etc. Do you think the masters of long ago didnt realize an opponent could take someone to the ground? All the components of MMA are inherent in the traditional arts. The question is why are you training? What are you training for? Are you testing your techniques against different kinda of opponents? Do you even care about fighting? Are you using your art to evolve beyond the fight? Does your martial art enrich you or take away from your wholeness? What is karate? What is Tai chi? What is aikido? How does it serve you? The arts are so deep.
- BubRoss 7y ago
  You are mixing 'value' with fighting effectiveness. Value to people for fitness, focus or whatever else is separate and not what is being talked about now. This guy is a political target because he demonstrates that TMA don't work in normal fights. The other part of your comment about TMA thoroughly integrating large parts of MMA is not true in a large sense, though if someone took a class with lots of full contact striking and submission grappling it would be at least somewhat effective regardless of what it is called.
  - gist 7y ago
    > because he demonstrates that TMA don't work in normal fights Does not prove that at all. This particular person is obviously exceptional at what he is able to do. It's a big stretch to imply from his skill that 'TMA don't work in normal fights'. What's a 'normal' fight anyway? A 'normal' fight is not in the basement of a gym where someone separates you and you bow and so on. For that matter a 'normal' fight is not an MMA fight. It is in an everyday situation maybe in a bar maybe by accident on the street. In that case there is a different set of rules and defense strategies. One other thing. Everyone in discussing this is ignoring what a traditional fighter (or even this person) might do in a 'real' and uncontrolled situation in order to win if they had to and if their life depended on it. Maybe they would poke an eye out maybe they would break a leg or arm. Who knows.
    - BubRoss 7y ago
      First, this guy has said that he is not exceptional at MMA. If you watch his fights you see that they aren't competitive. It is clear he isn't being pushed, a few strikes and the other guy gives up, usually without having been able to throw anything that looks like a dangerous punch. MMA is as close as we get to being able to see real fights over and over. There has been vale tudo in Japan but these fights and fighters were so rare they only gave a glimpse into the patterns that would emerge. The argument over 'street fights' and 'different rules' has been around for a long time, but the fact is that when MMA fighters end up fighting 'on the street' or in a bar, they win. Being in a different setting doesn't change the enormous skill gap in fighting. Anything the other guy can do the trained person can do too. It doesn't somehow swing things in the other direction. Do you really think some untrained person is going to suddenly be able to eyepoke better than someone who has been boxing for years? Do you think an untrained person is going to be able to break the arm of someone who has taken years of jiu jitsu and practices keeping their arms safe for many hours every week?
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >Does not prove that at all. This particular person is obviously exceptional at what he is able to do. It's a big stretch to imply from his skill that 'TMA don't work in normal fights'. It's not this "particular person", it has been proven time and again, even in studies
gist 7y ago
> ineffective in empirical tests My guess (per my other comment below) is that there are not any empirical tests for real life situations. Which person does better in a street fight or trying to defend themselves from an attacker (potentially using deadly force) when there is life at stake and no rules. And no person to separate the two fighters (like there were in the video or there are in MMA).
- hash872 7y ago
  Early proto-MMA events in the US & Brazil literally had no rules (Google 'vale tudo'), and included groin strikes & eye gouges (Google 'Keith Hackney Joe Son'). They were actually underground fighting events, some held in illegal clubs, warehouses, basements- and, they were won by BJJ & Muay Thai guys- the constituent martial arts that make up what we call MMA today. You can actually find Vale Tudo fights on Youtube to see for yourself! Early UFC events also literally had no rules as well- and they were won by, first BJJ and then wrestling. TMA guys didn't fare so well even in the complete absence of rules. Police & military units the world over study MMA or the individual martial arts that make up MMA (BJJ, wrestling, boxing etc.)- not Kung Fu. Jocko Willink, a highly decorated 20 year Navy SEAL commander, is also a BJJ blackbelt and has specifically said that he used jiu-jitsu to subdue militants in close quarter combat, and that TMAs don't work. On the Joe Rogan podcast he talked about fighting other SEALs in the 90s who were into TMAs and beating them with jiu-jitsu..... Wouldn't an actual Navy SEAL with combat experience know more about what works in a 'real life situation'? I don't understand how 'person to separate the two fighters' makes it less realistic- they're there to prevent someone who's been KOed from suffering any more unnecessary strikes
  - achenatx 7y ago
    jiu jitsu is a traditional martial art.. so is muay thai. If you go back through history, fighting hasnt changed much. There are ancient roman statues showing techniques used today. As fighters get too injured, arts start to specialize in one area, and often times become stylized to emphasize the art. Kung fu was eviscerated in the 1920s when fighting in the lei tai was banned. Before that time fights were often times to the death. Even MMA is watered down from its origin. Rule sets change to emphasize one kind of fight over another. For example bare knuckle favors grappling because you cant punch as hard without breaking your hand. Gloves favor strikers which are more fun to watch. kung fu includes sanda and sashou which fight as a combat sport.

blackSnake 7y ago

Progressive martial arts evolved out of traditional martial arts. A lot of it has to do with the practitioner himself. The progressive arts like MMA and Jui-Jitsu emphasize the combative aspect of the arts. Tai-Chi for the most part is nowadays mostly practiced for therapeutic benefits BUT I would argue that there are Tai Chi practitioners worth their weight in gold. The question is, what are you training for? If the Tai chi guy isnt sparring and moving around with other guys intensely, big surprise, theyre going to suck in a fight but that does not take away from the legitimacy and depth of the art. Tai chi still has blocks, kicks, strikes, ground grappling counters, standing grappling counters, etc. Do you think the masters of long ago didnt realize an opponent could take someone to the ground? All the components of MMA are inherent in the traditional arts. The question is why are you training? What are you training for? Are you testing your techniques against different kinda of opponents? Do you even care about fighting? Are you using your art to evolve beyond the fight? Does your martial art enrich you or take away from your wholeness? What is karate? What is Tai chi? What is aikido? How does it serve you? The arts are so deep.

BubRoss 7y ago
You are mixing 'value' with fighting effectiveness. Value to people for fitness, focus or whatever else is separate and not what is being talked about now. This guy is a political target because he demonstrates that TMA don't work in normal fights. The other part of your comment about TMA thoroughly integrating large parts of MMA is not true in a large sense, though if someone took a class with lots of full contact striking and submission grappling it would be at least somewhat effective regardless of what it is called.
- gist 7y ago
  > because he demonstrates that TMA don't work in normal fights Does not prove that at all. This particular person is obviously exceptional at what he is able to do. It's a big stretch to imply from his skill that 'TMA don't work in normal fights'. What's a 'normal' fight anyway? A 'normal' fight is not in the basement of a gym where someone separates you and you bow and so on. For that matter a 'normal' fight is not an MMA fight. It is in an everyday situation maybe in a bar maybe by accident on the street. In that case there is a different set of rules and defense strategies. One other thing. Everyone in discussing this is ignoring what a traditional fighter (or even this person) might do in a 'real' and uncontrolled situation in order to win if they had to and if their life depended on it. Maybe they would poke an eye out maybe they would break a leg or arm. Who knows.
  - BubRoss 7y ago
    First, this guy has said that he is not exceptional at MMA. If you watch his fights you see that they aren't competitive. It is clear he isn't being pushed, a few strikes and the other guy gives up, usually without having been able to throw anything that looks like a dangerous punch. MMA is as close as we get to being able to see real fights over and over. There has been vale tudo in Japan but these fights and fighters were so rare they only gave a glimpse into the patterns that would emerge. The argument over 'street fights' and 'different rules' has been around for a long time, but the fact is that when MMA fighters end up fighting 'on the street' or in a bar, they win. Being in a different setting doesn't change the enormous skill gap in fighting. Anything the other guy can do the trained person can do too. It doesn't somehow swing things in the other direction. Do you really think some untrained person is going to suddenly be able to eyepoke better than someone who has been boxing for years? Do you think an untrained person is going to be able to break the arm of someone who has taken years of jiu jitsu and practices keeping their arms safe for many hours every week?
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Does not prove that at all. This particular person is obviously exceptional at what he is able to do. It's a big stretch to imply from his skill that 'TMA don't work in normal fights'. It's not this "particular person", it has been proven time and again, even in studies

gist 7y ago

> ineffective in empirical tests My guess (per my other comment below) is that there are not any empirical tests for real life situations. Which person does better in a street fight or trying to defend themselves from an attacker (potentially using deadly force) when there is life at stake and no rules. And no person to separate the two fighters (like there were in the video or there are in MMA).

hash872 7y ago
Early proto-MMA events in the US & Brazil literally had no rules (Google 'vale tudo'), and included groin strikes & eye gouges (Google 'Keith Hackney Joe Son'). They were actually underground fighting events, some held in illegal clubs, warehouses, basements- and, they were won by BJJ & Muay Thai guys- the constituent martial arts that make up what we call MMA today. You can actually find Vale Tudo fights on Youtube to see for yourself! Early UFC events also literally had no rules as well- and they were won by, first BJJ and then wrestling. TMA guys didn't fare so well even in the complete absence of rules. Police & military units the world over study MMA or the individual martial arts that make up MMA (BJJ, wrestling, boxing etc.)- not Kung Fu. Jocko Willink, a highly decorated 20 year Navy SEAL commander, is also a BJJ blackbelt and has specifically said that he used jiu-jitsu to subdue militants in close quarter combat, and that TMAs don't work. On the Joe Rogan podcast he talked about fighting other SEALs in the 90s who were into TMAs and beating them with jiu-jitsu..... Wouldn't an actual Navy SEAL with combat experience know more about what works in a 'real life situation'? I don't understand how 'person to separate the two fighters' makes it less realistic- they're there to prevent someone who's been KOed from suffering any more unnecessary strikes
- achenatx 7y ago
  jiu jitsu is a traditional martial art.. so is muay thai. If you go back through history, fighting hasnt changed much. There are ancient roman statues showing techniques used today. As fighters get too injured, arts start to specialize in one area, and often times become stylized to emphasize the art. Kung fu was eviscerated in the 1920s when fighting in the lei tai was banned. Before that time fights were often times to the death. Even MMA is watered down from its origin. Rule sets change to emphasize one kind of fight over another. For example bare knuckle favors grappling because you cant punch as hard without breaking your hand. Gloves favor strikers which are more fun to watch. kung fu includes sanda and sashou which fight as a combat sport.