Why do Traditional Martial Artists think the secret to win against MMAist is?

Question

is groin strike and eye gouges? Especially if Traditional Martial Artists tend to have a low wide stance with hands by hips?

LMAO sorry I didn't mean to insult TMAist. Eventhought I know some grappling, I am probably more of a TMAist guy since I mostly do Muay Thai only. I simply find it funny that many TMAist keep bring up groin strike and eye gouge stuff.

Answer 1

first of all MMA is not a single style it is a type of competition or a fighter who has trained in multiple styles. There are new styles that have been created in the last few decades such as Gracie JiuJitSu, Militich Fighting Systems and some of the other Shoot fighting styles. All true Martial arts such as Jiujitsu, Judo Wrestling, Muay Tai Karate etc have been around for hundreds of years in some cases thousands. I
There is also a big difference between American Karate, Tai Kwan Do and Kick Boxin and the Traditonal styles of the same Martial Arts. In American Karate, TKD they teach kicks and punches in the traditional styles they include some submissions and take downs similar to Aikido. Muay Tai is very different from American Kick Boxing. And if you ever matched a Traditional artist against an American style fighter well the Traditional will come out on top.

They've already proven that when you match a Grappler with a striker the fights are always one sided. Grapplers were tired of getting knocked out before they could take their opponent down and strikers were tired of getting submitted because there art does not tech ground defence. So those fighters started learning other martial arts to make them selfs better prepared for fighters with styles they didn't have. It evolved into what everyone calls MMA which is taking traditional martial arts and puting them together to be a well rounded fighter. Remember MMA is not a style it is a collection of other skills put together. In some case people have started Dojos to teach multiple styles or what most people wrongly call a MMA style that they developed. Again such as Militich fighting systems.

All fighters regardless of the style are taught not to use there training to harm another person out side of the dojo. And besides what is a Round house kick, or a Kumura going to do agains a guy who is in a rage and rushes you in a bar. You kick him in the ******* nuts. Or you punch him in the face. Remember when it's all over and the policae show up and they ask witnesses what happend do you want them saying that big drunk guy attack him and he defended him self by kicking him in the groin or would you rather they say
Wow you should have seen him he did a standing roundhouse and then got on the guy and put him in an arm triangle and choked him out then got on top of him and ground and pounded him until he was a bloody pulp. As soon as a judge hears you jave a black belt or training in a martial art and you used it to hurt someone your guilty. Even if he attacked you.
The law states you can only use as much force as neccesary to stop the threat anything more constitutes excessive force. And that applies to everyone not just police and military.

For those who say it's old guys who think this way. I'm 28 and I have 12 years of Judo and 5 years of wrestling so I could be considered a Mixed Martial Artist. Although I do not compete anymore I concider my training a gift and sacred and would never use it to harm anyone outside of a mutual competition. So yes I would kick a guy in the nuts if I felt it was the only way to stop him from hurting me, even though I may be able to brake his arm.

Answer 2

What I find amazing is that people think that MMA is something special that has so far surpassed and replaced the traditional martial arts that the TMA are somehow extinct.

MMA is just pieces of traditional arts thrown together to create a new sport. Everyone with experience in martial arts understands that no single art is successful or relevant in every situation, and that to be a well rounded martial artist you need exposure to many different styles.

Not all the traditional arts concentrate on low wide stances, there are many that are more directly upright, or have a good mixture of both. Look at northern versus southern versions of kung fu, where the stances are usually more upright in the north (mountainous regions) and more wide and open in the south (open plains regions). In Goju ryu, there is a variety of both, and as I was taught it is because of the same thing, you adjusted your stance according to your terrain.

I thought it especially funny that one person said above, "If what the old guys practiced acually worked, then they would train for that in the cage, but they dont becasue it is like old technology, it needs to be thrown out." I find it funny because this person actually seems to believe that the "cage" is real life, and that what is done in the "cage" is something other than a sport. That simply isn't realistic. The MMA matches in CA and NV are regulated by the state boards just like professional boxing, therefore there are many rules to protect the participants. This doesn't reflect the real life situations that the original traditional arts were created to combat, though of course many TMA have gone "to sport" as it were and no longer reflect their original techniques in the same fashion as they once were. TMA should by no means be discounted as not being effective or useful. It is the practitioner, not the style that is effective or not.

TMA or MMA, it's all good, as long as you are interested, you enjoy practicing and/or competing, and you are learning something that will benefit you for the rest of your life.

By the way, I too am a traditional martial artist, having studied mainly Goju Ryu Karate-do, Aikido, Iaido, Battado, and previously some kung fu, TKD and MDK when I was in my teens.

Answer 3

The one that made the least critical mistake. It also would depend on if you are talking about in a cage or self defense. In the sport setting the MMA fighter would have an advantage, in the real world a traditional Martial artist should have an advantage, but that would depend on how well he trained. There are plenty of traditional classes that train brutally. Usually TMA doesn't concern themselves with strength training. Powerful with money? Well a professional MMA fighter should make more money from the arts, but as with everything there are exceptions. Variations of this question have been asked to death. The best answer to it is another question, what the hell does it matter? The two train for opposite goals. There is room in this world for both, so let it go. The last statement you made makes you sound like a petulant child. "I'm Telling". Keyboard can be very abrasive, and he is most definitely biased to MMA, but he has a right to answer just like anybody else. If you don't want contact with him and don't want his answer, block him. The way you are going about it opens you up to have this question deleted and does nothing for your reputation.

Answer 4

Personally, if I were to get into a confrontation with a MMA on the street where I would need to defend myself, I wouldn't treat him any differently than anybody else. That being said, I am a traditional martial artist, and I do not train for the ring, octagon, or the cage.

The way in which I train is to never anticipate, but only to react or create an opening/advantage. Along with fighting techniques, a great deal of traditional martial arts is philosophy. Forms in traditional Chinese martial arts tend to actually be prayers, but this idea has been watered down in order to make the art more marketable to people whose religions may not agree with it. This being said, I tend to think much of the "art" in "martial art" is lost to MMA.

Back to the main topic, I would use anything in my arsenal to combat somebody. Since I do not have any static movements, I cannot say with any certainty what I would do one way or another; it would depend entirely on the situation! Once a fight is static, the fight is dead. There is no maneuver I am determined to use regardless of the opponent, or regardless of the attack to which I am defending.

For the sake of your question, though, if I were being choked by a stronger opponent, maybe I'd gouge his eyes, maybe I'd strike the groin, maybe I would even bite his arm, but if I had my knife or gun on me, I'd be more inclined to use either of those. I don't think all those options are available in the octagon...

Answer 5

LOL. Watch it NINE DEMON I am a traditionalist and I don't think that way. You are making a bold generalization here.
Eye gouges are good in a desperate situation, I feel in the street if you are in a lock up situation and you are not really a grappler the eyes are a good target.
The groin is only good for creating another opening, it is not a knock out solution.

Low and wide stances, yes they are the root of my style. But a common misnomer is that we hit that stance and stay in it, not so. One should remain neutral and in a ready position with their guard up. The low stance should only be effected during a technique. It is somewhat transitional. Yes, we do forms in this stance but it is to increase flexibility and leg strength.

To traditionalist, many traditional striking arts lack ground grappling techniques however the students of old usually had wrestling experience before ever training in striking. They believed in being a well rounded warriors as do I.

MMA events are set-up for grapplers. It is rare that a striker thrives in the octagon. It is a caged in flat area for a one on one fight, this is grappler territory. Even if two very good strikers get in this forum they will most likely clash and end up on the ground anyway. So, I encourage strikers to learn to grapple.
It is always good to have options.

No offense taken, I think anyone that relies on "magic bullet" is in for a rude awaking, no single technique (or two techiniques) will cover all situations. People that proclaim this most likely lack experience and are being taught this. Never rely on single techinque. The mark of a good practitioner is versatility. If you cannot adapt to the ever changing circumstances of a fight you are doomed.

Answer 6

Oh, every art has its purpose. I agree that it is always helpful to round yourself out in martial arts but it is rude to denigrate one or the other.

BOTH "striking" and "wrestling" styles have long, long histories; and that's not including the styles that exhibit both techniques in their repertoire. It is also not a case of modern versus old. How modern are any of the grappling/joint-lock and ground-fighting forms? Or Greco-Roman and Mongolian wrestling?

I will stick my neck out here, but the reason you see so much wrestling in MMA tournaments is that they are TOURNAMENTS. Fighting in private would be somewhat different. In the street, nothing is barred, and I suspect the loser will either end up a pile of broken bones or have his head bashed into the sidewalk -- simple as that.

Answer 7

1- Not all TMAs think that. Only deluded idiots do who recieve poor training from unqualified or delusional teachers.

2- TMAs don't all have wide stances with hands by hips. only crappy krotty or point sparring tkd does.

3- those that do think that way because they have never sparred against someone doing MMA. Probably never even drilled against them either. They are likely just listening to thier teacher's crap because the teacher can't defend against that style or acknowledge its weaknesses so rather than risk losing a student they just spout some crap. The teacher might believe it themself too because he has never sparred or drilled against someone in MMA.

Answer 8

If what the old guys practiced acually worked, then they would train for that in the cage, but they dont becasue it is like old technology, it needs to be thrown out.

Answer 9

low stances and hands by hips is for condioning of the body.. dumb ***
u only c ppl fight like that in hollywood