[blackSnake]

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]

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]

> 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]

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]

>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