Please re-read my post without just looking for things to argue about and you'll see what I am getting at. It's not all black and white like in the ring. There is a very big difference between dealing with someone on the str33t who may or may not escalate the situation to the point of fighting. Think for example of dealing with irate relatives, drunks, kids, students, etc where you need to avoid or de-escalate without knocking them out or submitting them. Hapkido, as an art for self defence is looking to deal with those "gray areas"... on a low level of force, we can avoid, de-escalate, and so on... if the level of force goes up, we can avoid, parry, escape, go for an escort technique or lock, and on a high level of force, we respond with more force, for example using a weapon or deadly force. In the ring, there is a big difference of intent: the MMA fighter is there specifically to knock me out or submit me... putting me already of the most dangerous level of force and giving me no room to use my other skills for lower levels of force. To be successful in a ring enviroment, I have to build up those skills specifically. The difference is also that I know what he is going to do in the ring.... on the str33t, no one knows. As someone who trains in self defence for the area I live and work in, the high level of force skills necessary for that are out of touch with the "normal" level of incidents I can expect. For self defence, I'd rather train for the higher percentage occassions that I can expect in my life, not for the artifical sense of the ring. Honestly, if I knew that I to face someone like Chuck Liddell in a steel cage and he could use any techniques he trains in and I could use any of mine, I'd shoot him with my pistol from across the ring. That's the difference. For me, most of what I deal with are downtown drunks and high school students. MMA skills are good for the general aspects but I also need to spend lots of time working on de-escalation, low level of force escorts and defences, and so on. Being able to take an unexpected attack and resolve it without really hurting anyone is a big plus in my job. I don't think those skills would work as well unaltered in the ring. No, I was suggesting that I would have my friends with me and/or that I would be using the knife or gun. I need all of the advantages I can get, especially the surprise factor.
I think even if landed correctly, the amount of power you would need to break the knee is such that these techniques are no more dangerous than, say, a knee bar. I mean, I use them in sparring and though I typically use them to disrupt balance and timing, I've never hurt someone... Oh well. Still mulling this whole thing over.
I think we honestly are beating a dead horse here. We have come to the conclusion of yes, and still going on about this. Now this topic is getting repetative and pointless. I say its time to focus on a different idea.
Thomas, I do partly agree with stuff you're saying about mma fights being arranged and prepared for, it does make a difference to the mental state of the fighters/people involved. (this point from now is also directed at anyone who cares to comment/think on it, not just Thomas) My point (which i'd like to have acknowledged by a practioner of your level/amount of time trained), was that all of these techniques are not exclusive to hapkido, judo has a lot of similar techniques, as does karate, as does aikido, as does BJJ. Styles are not relevant, and in my opinion, should be studied with tight scrutiny and real STUDY, which means questioning everything that you do and not staying bound to a particular "system". Of course those techniques that have been mentioned will work in MMA, it goes without saying for anyone with any real knowledge of martial art. But why people must always post these threads trying to validate their own style, has recently got me annoyed, because, as i say, it doesn't matter which style you choose, if you train it right (which you have to, if you want to consider yourself a real fighting based martial artist) it will always be effective. So then, what is the difference between any TMA done right, and MMA? The answer is, there is no difference, the only thing holding anyone back is stupid and ignorant politics or tradition.
Goju, I would tend to agree with your points as they are similar to my post on page 3 of this thread Quote: "If we step outside the arena of sport and we have casue to employ our art (whatever it is) and we employ it right we would attack the knees,we would attack the groin,(no cup),the bladder,limb destruct,attack the joints,attack the neck,the throat,the face the eyes. These areas of attack are basic points in most arts,so when some say to aiki stylists " you think your art is too deadly to try in the sport arena",that is false,we know in sport we are not allowed to attack vital targets,(which if attacked in sport would reduce the number of fighters by one half each time they competed),but which in life or death scenarios would be the main focus of most of our attacks.(by all practioners of any art) So in MMA realism and contact are important and in the Aiki arts Compliance for longevity is important,but in ALL the arts we have the vital targets,targets that may or may not cause serious injury or death when needed .(but they are not needed in sport or training) Depending on our art and our reasons for training we may get what ever we want from each and every art be it Art,Health,sport,culture or self defense. (just train it correctly for the need(s) desired)" I would also agree whole heartedly with Thomas's last two posts. MMA or any sport fight is an agreed to event,all opponents know that they are going to fight.One must be the attacker one must be the defender and both positions are traded off,back and forth. For the martial artists who is attacked on the street,who has failed to be aware and avoid,the encounter already sees that person in Defense mode,they are reacting to the threat. They may pretend to comply,they may use verbal disrupt,they may draw the attacker in,they may move the field out by stepping back or side ways,they may choose to preempt and attack or they may wait and draw the attacker in and make them feel superior and then set on them it is up to the practioner and dependent on the actions of the attacker. Self Defense,in any art,is the use of all the training you have,from verbal skills to fight or flight,these are not found in Sport. No matter if a person studies for Self Defense or Sport,if they have any intention of using their art for self preservation they had better be training it in some form of reality. Just my two cents
For what it's worth, I agree with you that the techniques are not exclusive to any art and that study of various styles can help you better understand your own art and help you become better at what you do. Nobody is really doing anything "new", but we do express it differently based on need. My only disagreement is that "style" does matter in a way. A "style" is the glue that holds the individual techniques together and provides the underlying rationale and philosophy of what we do. For example, the "style" I do (Combat Hapkido) has a clear philosphy of what and why we do things, from balance disruptions to distractions to our various levels of force and provides our rationale for how we respond. MMA has a different set of rationales and reasons. We use the same tools but we have a different purpose behind what we do. It doesn't mean that styles can't accomodate each other. Personally I recommend that students focus on one style and learn the how's and why's first... and then cross train to address other needs. Without a style, you just have a collection of tricks and techniques without a binding philosophy of use. The only difference lies in what purposes you train for. You may use all of the same tools, but you can use them for fitness, sport, or self defence. This will change the way you train and what you focus on, but not necessarily the techniques. MMA, as regarded as a (specific) style for MMA competitions, in my book is just another adaptation of TMA skills for a specific purpose.
Again i agree with most of what you say, except my opinion is that what you're describing about hows and whys, are not styles, but philosophies. I'm not trying to say that martial arts is completely about fighting, but i'm describing my own path that i've chosen to take. I'm saying that too many people are bound by these actual "styles" which include some techniques, and not others because their tradition or rulebook says not to. Also, i see a lot of MMA as one of these styles, as although, there are a lot of very open minded people, most MMA people i might never look outside what they're taught by one (or maybe several) instructors and don't seem to validate any other "style" that is not within their except 4 or 5, even though it is quite clear those other "styles" do include things that will work in MMA. What you seem to be saying (correct me if i misinterpret) is that you believe students should follow a philosophy, rather than a style, which i am in complete agreement with, although they should not be bound by one person's idea of the right philosophy, and should always try to look outside of it for the chance to learn more.
I think we're on basically the same page... just using different words. I look at style (or philosophy of the art) as occupying at least 3 levels: Top: overall concepts of the art, e.g. Hapkido or MMA Middle: How a particular school or group interprets it: this should contain most, if not all, of the concepts and philosphies of the Top level, but with some different changes because of goals or individual leadership, e.g. Combat Hapkido (or other "kwans") or a MMA camp like Team Quest (etc.) Personal level: How an individual interprets the style to fit their own goals and objectives... and this wil vary from person to person. So for me, for example, my "style" is Combat Hapkido and my basic philosphies of my art come from that, and they are further streamlined and modified by my own school and my own ideas. In my book, it's my "style", but I would also say my "philosophy."
That's more what I like to see. You said "it's my style". That's what the word should mean, not a style in the sense of "that's not in the rulebook, you can't use that" or, "master (enter various names here) says that technique is secret, for black belts only, you can't do that", but rather, it's an individual's style of fighting. Personally though, i'm getting to the point where i don't want to allign myself with a named style any more, because it boils down to politics, rather than anything else.
