There is a lot of nonsense surrounding the whole phenomena of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA). A lot of it is promoted by MMA establishments, possibly due to ignorance or possibly due to a particular redefining of the word ‘mixed’. There is also a lot of nonsense coming from the Traditional Chinese Martial Arts. People hide behind certain phrases like “our art is meant to kill” or “we don’t fight because it’s too deadly to use in competition” etc. This post will be one of several, and it will be tagged for easy search, dealing with the concept of Mixed Martial Arts and the concept of Traditional Chinese Martial Arts. To maintain a sincere air of balance, I will alternate between posts, critiquing both MMA and TCMA regarding their own specific issues. This particular post will focus primarily on the incorrect notion and definition of Mixed Martial Arts.
Mixed Martial Arts is a term applied to modern day fighters, in and out of the ring, who train in several distinct disciplines in order to become a well rounded fighting machine. Thus we have arts such as jiu-jitsu being utilized by an individual who also trains in Muay Thai, Shoot Wrestling, Western Boxing etc. That is what people consider to be Mixed Martial Arts today. Bruce Lee is considered, by a large majority, to be the father of Mixed Martial Arts because Lee, though trained mostly in a classical Chinese art, decided to broaden his horizons and would eventually add western fencing, western boxing, karate, tae kwon do etc to his training regiment, and create the now ever so popular martial philosophy of Jeet Kune Do. Though the recognizable core of his fight philosophy is heavily the Chinese martial art of Wing Chun, it was considered a milestone in the combat arts for championing the idea of learning from many different sources and taking the good while leaving what you consider personally unhelpful. The take home message I suppose is the idea of Mixed Martial Arts being a mix of different styles and forms of combat to make yourself more efficient at fighting. However, Lee certainly was the not first, nor the last, to have conceived of this notion. This has been done for thousands of years.
Traditional Chinese Martial Arts has a history spanning thousands of years. It goes past the popular Shaolin Temple and has its roots in the most basic of martial combat employed during warfare. Thus it can be said that any country that has ever waged war has a type of martial art. From how a shield should be worn and used, to where a bayonet should be aimed, these are all forms of martial combat. TCMA is essentially a slow crystallization of knowledge, passed through generations, being added and subtracted from, in order to arrive at what we have in the modern day. Any two TCMA styles are no more than half alike in either fight philosophy or fight techniques employed. I say half because, when all is said and done, barring accidents and mutations, we all have the exact number of limbs, joints and digits. Someone, somewhere, is going to arrive at the conclusion that a certain way of punching is ideal for a certain situation and, without consultation, someone else will arrive at the same conclusion, though perhaps through a different process. Thus, as I said, half alike due to the limitation and semi-uniformity of the human body, but so very different in other aspects.
Unless we travel back to the very Genesis of martial combat, all modern forms of fighting, even what we consider to be classical styles such as Japanese Karate, TCMA etc are mixed martial arts. Karate is both indigenous to Okinawa as much as it is heavily influenced by Chinese Martial Arts. The foundation of Okinawan unarmed combat, as well as weapons combat, can all be traced back to the Mainland. However, the past masters took what they thought relevant to their situation, made it distinctly Okinawan, and trained with the express purpose in mind of making it their tradition, their lore, their form of combat. And it is true. Under the eyes of a casual observer, Karate and certain styles of Gung Fu are very different. Outside of the occasional punch and kick, the structure, stepping, breathing, tempo etc are all very different. But those that have made it even a casual open-minded study will note the many similarities in the movements, techniques employed etc. How can Karate NOW not be considered a mixed martial arts system when already, many hundreds of years ago, Karate THEN was already a rich container of different philosophies, foreign as well as indigenous techniques, and a separate mindset which allowed the art to evolve in a very different manner than its sibling/cousin arts elsewhere in Asia?
When asked what makes MMA MMA, many fighters will point that they incorporate striking and grappling into their fighting styles. Thus they have a good “stand up” as well as “ground fight” game, two crucial elements which they say are ‘mixed‘ into a single training mindset. If we were to break it down to just bare bones elements, then any style of TCMA would have to be considered an MMA. At the very least, all TCMA styles have a stand up striking plan. In fact, this is a major criticism most classical arts must suffer from the more modern fighters; that the focus is too narrow on only a stand up game and there is no alternative fight plan. TCMA also have distinct joint and limb locking techniques; techniques that do not revolve around striking at all, but on subduing an individual through a very dynamic movement followed by a firm static force. They also have a plethora of weapons (ranging from the typical sword, spear and staff, to the less typical chain whip, rope dart, cane, needles etc) that are wielded differently and, though usable in all situations, have certain cases where they would be more effective than others.
(A well made spear is almost categorically better than an equally well made staff if only in the fact that the spear can be used as a staff while also as a stabbing implement).
Ground fighting… I will address that in a separate post; not because I have nothing to say, but because I have something inflammatory to say which will tie in better with a separate theme. But nixing the ground fighting, TCMA has three elements to “MMA’s” two.
Why is TCMA not considered a mixed martial arts? A possible argument would be that Modern MMA is a mixture of very distinct styles of combat from various regions around the world that focus on different strategies and techniques. This I call bullshit for two reasons, and I will include a short and a long explanation. The first short reason is that any person who watches any MMA competition will see that it almost always boils down to a semi-homoerotic punch and grapple fest (let the author now note that he has no issue with homosexuality. It is perfectly natural in my opinion and is nothing to be negatively excited about). To aid in this terse description, allow me to link you over to the web comic “Penny-Arcade” which, though simplifying to a degree… isn’t actually that far off:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/7/15/
The second short reason is that TCMA has been combining distinct styles of combat to form new theories, techniques and schools for centuries.
There isn’t a very long explanation required for the first short reason. It is almost self-explanatory. But to elucidate briefly (I will be touching on this topic in a different post), what the hell is the point of learning such disparate forms of combat and discipline if, when utilized, it boils down to nearly identical tactics, techniques and counters? It is a game of rock, paper, scissors where everyone takes the rock from the same mountain, the paper from the same tree, and the scissors from the same store. The only difference is who has the bigger rock, the thicker sheet of paper, and the better brand of scissors. How they use the tools, however, are all the same. This only works in a game. I will leave off explaining THAT particularly inflammatory bit in another post as well.
Regarding the second short point, there are several hundred distinct, documented styles, of Chinese Martial Arts. The emphasis is on the word documented, as it is hypothesized that throughout history, there have been some which have died off for various reasons, or are simply undocumented due to continued secrecy in practice
(the latter is mostly due to family styles which are strictly within the family).
But there are very real examples of how classical mixings created the more contemporary arts.
(I use contemporary loosely, as something with a history of several thousand years can be said to be more contemporary when dealing only within the span of a 100 or so years).
A very real example would be the Northern Mantis style. The Northern Mantis style (and within this branch there are several distinct sub-branches as well which differ quite broadly regarding focus i.e. Eight Step Mantis [Baat Bo Tong Long], Seven Star Mantis [Chaat Sing Tong Long], Six Unity/Harmony Mantis [Lok Hap Tong Long] etc) was created by a Buddhist martial monk who, after being incapable of defeating his older martial brother, went off to the forest to train. He gained deep insight after seeing a mantis kill and devour a larger insect. He spent months prodding the mantis with bits of straw to see how it would react to aggression from different angles and speeds. From that he developed particular hand techniques he found impressive. Thus we already have a mixture of two distinct styles. One is the core knowledge of the traditional Shaolin Buddhist martial arts. The second is the distinct handwork of the Mantis (and if you have ever seen Northern Mantis, you will agree that it is very distinct in handwork). And the third is the footwork; the method of advancing, retreating, side stepping, jumping, kicking, and blocking with legs. Those elements were borrowed, and of course slightly modified, from the Monkey style. Three distinct elements, borrowed from three distinct arts, were combined to create a new fight philosophy, new techniques, and new training schemes intentionally to develop a different type of fighting style and fighter. How is this not mixed martial arts?
After such a drawn out exposition, what is the take home message? As I said, under the headline “Of MMA and TCMA”, I plan to write several posts directly addressing the interaction of these two. Each post will have its own point. This one was geared at expressing my opinion that the scoffing and low opinion of TCMA by MMA practitioners is not one properly fueled by a definitional difference. For in truth, I think I have made it at least 80% clear that, by definition, TCMA should be considered MMA in both a classical as well as modern light. The conflict comes from somewhere else, and that will be addressed in a different post.
Train Hard. Talk Less.
~Thunder Palms
Mixed Martial Arts is a term applied to modern day fighters, in and out of the ring, who train in several distinct disciplines in order to become a well rounded fighting machine. Thus we have arts such as jiu-jitsu being utilized by an individual who also trains in Muay Thai, Shoot Wrestling, Western Boxing etc. That is what people consider to be Mixed Martial Arts today. Bruce Lee is considered, by a large majority, to be the father of Mixed Martial Arts because Lee, though trained mostly in a classical Chinese art, decided to broaden his horizons and would eventually add western fencing, western boxing, karate, tae kwon do etc to his training regiment, and create the now ever so popular martial philosophy of Jeet Kune Do. Though the recognizable core of his fight philosophy is heavily the Chinese martial art of Wing Chun, it was considered a milestone in the combat arts for championing the idea of learning from many different sources and taking the good while leaving what you consider personally unhelpful. The take home message I suppose is the idea of Mixed Martial Arts being a mix of different styles and forms of combat to make yourself more efficient at fighting. However, Lee certainly was the not first, nor the last, to have conceived of this notion. This has been done for thousands of years.
Traditional Chinese Martial Arts has a history spanning thousands of years. It goes past the popular Shaolin Temple and has its roots in the most basic of martial combat employed during warfare. Thus it can be said that any country that has ever waged war has a type of martial art. From how a shield should be worn and used, to where a bayonet should be aimed, these are all forms of martial combat. TCMA is essentially a slow crystallization of knowledge, passed through generations, being added and subtracted from, in order to arrive at what we have in the modern day. Any two TCMA styles are no more than half alike in either fight philosophy or fight techniques employed. I say half because, when all is said and done, barring accidents and mutations, we all have the exact number of limbs, joints and digits. Someone, somewhere, is going to arrive at the conclusion that a certain way of punching is ideal for a certain situation and, without consultation, someone else will arrive at the same conclusion, though perhaps through a different process. Thus, as I said, half alike due to the limitation and semi-uniformity of the human body, but so very different in other aspects.
Unless we travel back to the very Genesis of martial combat, all modern forms of fighting, even what we consider to be classical styles such as Japanese Karate, TCMA etc are mixed martial arts. Karate is both indigenous to Okinawa as much as it is heavily influenced by Chinese Martial Arts. The foundation of Okinawan unarmed combat, as well as weapons combat, can all be traced back to the Mainland. However, the past masters took what they thought relevant to their situation, made it distinctly Okinawan, and trained with the express purpose in mind of making it their tradition, their lore, their form of combat. And it is true. Under the eyes of a casual observer, Karate and certain styles of Gung Fu are very different. Outside of the occasional punch and kick, the structure, stepping, breathing, tempo etc are all very different. But those that have made it even a casual open-minded study will note the many similarities in the movements, techniques employed etc. How can Karate NOW not be considered a mixed martial arts system when already, many hundreds of years ago, Karate THEN was already a rich container of different philosophies, foreign as well as indigenous techniques, and a separate mindset which allowed the art to evolve in a very different manner than its sibling/cousin arts elsewhere in Asia?
When asked what makes MMA MMA, many fighters will point that they incorporate striking and grappling into their fighting styles. Thus they have a good “stand up” as well as “ground fight” game, two crucial elements which they say are ‘mixed‘ into a single training mindset. If we were to break it down to just bare bones elements, then any style of TCMA would have to be considered an MMA. At the very least, all TCMA styles have a stand up striking plan. In fact, this is a major criticism most classical arts must suffer from the more modern fighters; that the focus is too narrow on only a stand up game and there is no alternative fight plan. TCMA also have distinct joint and limb locking techniques; techniques that do not revolve around striking at all, but on subduing an individual through a very dynamic movement followed by a firm static force. They also have a plethora of weapons (ranging from the typical sword, spear and staff, to the less typical chain whip, rope dart, cane, needles etc) that are wielded differently and, though usable in all situations, have certain cases where they would be more effective than others.
(A well made spear is almost categorically better than an equally well made staff if only in the fact that the spear can be used as a staff while also as a stabbing implement).
Ground fighting… I will address that in a separate post; not because I have nothing to say, but because I have something inflammatory to say which will tie in better with a separate theme. But nixing the ground fighting, TCMA has three elements to “MMA’s” two.
Why is TCMA not considered a mixed martial arts? A possible argument would be that Modern MMA is a mixture of very distinct styles of combat from various regions around the world that focus on different strategies and techniques. This I call bullshit for two reasons, and I will include a short and a long explanation. The first short reason is that any person who watches any MMA competition will see that it almost always boils down to a semi-homoerotic punch and grapple fest (let the author now note that he has no issue with homosexuality. It is perfectly natural in my opinion and is nothing to be negatively excited about). To aid in this terse description, allow me to link you over to the web comic “Penny-Arcade” which, though simplifying to a degree… isn’t actually that far off:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/7/15/
The second short reason is that TCMA has been combining distinct styles of combat to form new theories, techniques and schools for centuries.
There isn’t a very long explanation required for the first short reason. It is almost self-explanatory. But to elucidate briefly (I will be touching on this topic in a different post), what the hell is the point of learning such disparate forms of combat and discipline if, when utilized, it boils down to nearly identical tactics, techniques and counters? It is a game of rock, paper, scissors where everyone takes the rock from the same mountain, the paper from the same tree, and the scissors from the same store. The only difference is who has the bigger rock, the thicker sheet of paper, and the better brand of scissors. How they use the tools, however, are all the same. This only works in a game. I will leave off explaining THAT particularly inflammatory bit in another post as well.
Regarding the second short point, there are several hundred distinct, documented styles, of Chinese Martial Arts. The emphasis is on the word documented, as it is hypothesized that throughout history, there have been some which have died off for various reasons, or are simply undocumented due to continued secrecy in practice
(the latter is mostly due to family styles which are strictly within the family).
But there are very real examples of how classical mixings created the more contemporary arts.
(I use contemporary loosely, as something with a history of several thousand years can be said to be more contemporary when dealing only within the span of a 100 or so years).
A very real example would be the Northern Mantis style. The Northern Mantis style (and within this branch there are several distinct sub-branches as well which differ quite broadly regarding focus i.e. Eight Step Mantis [Baat Bo Tong Long], Seven Star Mantis [Chaat Sing Tong Long], Six Unity/Harmony Mantis [Lok Hap Tong Long] etc) was created by a Buddhist martial monk who, after being incapable of defeating his older martial brother, went off to the forest to train. He gained deep insight after seeing a mantis kill and devour a larger insect. He spent months prodding the mantis with bits of straw to see how it would react to aggression from different angles and speeds. From that he developed particular hand techniques he found impressive. Thus we already have a mixture of two distinct styles. One is the core knowledge of the traditional Shaolin Buddhist martial arts. The second is the distinct handwork of the Mantis (and if you have ever seen Northern Mantis, you will agree that it is very distinct in handwork). And the third is the footwork; the method of advancing, retreating, side stepping, jumping, kicking, and blocking with legs. Those elements were borrowed, and of course slightly modified, from the Monkey style. Three distinct elements, borrowed from three distinct arts, were combined to create a new fight philosophy, new techniques, and new training schemes intentionally to develop a different type of fighting style and fighter. How is this not mixed martial arts?
After such a drawn out exposition, what is the take home message? As I said, under the headline “Of MMA and TCMA”, I plan to write several posts directly addressing the interaction of these two. Each post will have its own point. This one was geared at expressing my opinion that the scoffing and low opinion of TCMA by MMA practitioners is not one properly fueled by a definitional difference. For in truth, I think I have made it at least 80% clear that, by definition, TCMA should be considered MMA in both a classical as well as modern light. The conflict comes from somewhere else, and that will be addressed in a different post.
Train Hard. Talk Less.
~Thunder Palms
No comments:
Post a Comment