I have a very small silat class of which I have about 4 students (which is by choice) 2 of these guys are JKD coaches 1 is a thia/ground & pound coach. They love the harimau work and we discuss/work/evaluate differences between various movements, it is very alive as we do add the use of the blade, stick and 2 other opponents. We don't hold back with the striking if your open your hit simple. I'm not trying to blow my own trumpet here but we all have our version of "alive" training i just don't go round telling every body else that there's is wrong. Regards bela diri
I train in and teach a MMA system and I get embarassed by the comments that come out of the mouths of some of the guys who are in "my camp". The TMA's are the base of MMA and almost all of the best MMA guys have a strong TMA base. I've heard the goofballs who claim that a blue belt in BJJ is superior to a black belt in the TMA's, too. Amazing how many people are taken in by an effective marketing machine and treat it like it's the gospel. Our schools began as a TMA school and basically evolved by cross training into a MMA system. We do train a small percentage of our students for the ring/octagon (and at least want our black belts to be well versed in that style of fighting and competition), but while that is a great way of live training for healthy, young adults who are so inclined, it's not the end-all, be-all that many of it's fans make it out to be. For self defense, most people are better served by a stronger emphasis on stun and run techniques and strategies. Plus, the comments made about weapons is valid, that's why we've cross trained in the FMA's since the late 1970's and it is a mandatory part of our cirriculum. I think that many of the practitioners (and especially the armchair fans) of MMA who are vocal critics of the TMA's are in reaction to some of the dubious claims made by many in the TMA's (undocumented legends that grow more absurd everytime the story is re-told) and their own negative, frustrating experiences with sub-par, unrealistic "training" that they were involved in at a particular school. Of course, you'll also get the "our side is better than yours" mentallity involved and some in the MMA camp think they are leading some kind of revolution of the arts. Personally, I find that kind of attitude kind of revolting. Hope you don't mind a non-Silat practitioner adding in his two cents, but please don't lump all of the MMA folks into the "revolution group". Some of us are more about evolution and have a deep respect for our TMA roots and brothers in the arts .
Well said Kwang Jang, I appreciate that most MMA practitioners don't routinely condemn other MAs. I actually never heard any of the MMA guys at the club we used to train at claim superiority or spout the BS that is so often expressed online. However, there does seem to be a juvenile online MMA myth factory Also consider the fact that many of the Silat guys who post here have a lot of experience of, or have been high level MAists in other arts too. Some are ex military, law enforcement, or doormen. Hardly a bunch of gullible rookies who don't know their pantat from their siku! So why would we take up such a silly MA? Especially a silly MA where we don't even get to wear lycra hotpants
Well my experience would certainly lean to the contrary of your first statement. For you to be right the MMA players that discount TMA systems would have to be a seriously vocal minority and the ones who feel as you stated a very silent majority. I have been witness and participant to many debates both in person and online with MMA enthusiasts who seriously disrespect all TMAs simply based on the afore-mentioned and oft repeated "If it is so good why doesn't it rule in the ring" arguement and scoff at any questions about what their answer to situations that involve weapons, multiple attackers, or adverse enviornments might be. ...And yes the Dog Brothers have been brought up in those discussions and been subsequently belittled by the MMAers involved. (Which is too bad because I think even a single viewing of Crafty's Kali Tudo DVD might at least give some of them pause.) I'm certainly not saying that this is the stance of all MMA practitioners, I hope that it isn't, but you will have quite a task ahead of you if you are trying to assuage the impression that the other MMA camp has loudly perpetuated.
i've never heard any mma'ers bad mouth the dog brothers. So i really don't know where you are getting that from. And the truth is, if it doesnt work in MMA rules it wont work anywhere else.
hehe yup. i think everyone knows both sides of the arguement there so not much point in getting into it again.
Well alrighty then, whatever u do make sure to give it your all, and hopefully none of us will have to use what where being taught, unless your in the ring, other than that I keeps a blade and will use it looking like this=
Really? You think? So since I can't use a knife or a gun in a MMA ring, they won't work anywhere else, right? Why would you come to a silat group and make such a statement? In fact, why would you make it anywhere, since it is obviously dead wrong? You notice any wars being fought barehanded lately? You really need to think about what you say before you say it. Otherwise, you look like maybe you, you know, aren't playing with a full deck.
Ok, edit to include the term unarmed combat. Hmm at what point in a fight or self defence scenario exactly are you planning on killing your opponent?
Same Difference But there are rules in MMA fights, some of which are for the safety of the fighters, is this not so? Doesn't it logically follow that a technique that is forbidden because it might injure a trained and physically-sound fighter is one that would do just that? And that if you did it on the street it would have the same effect? Not allowed to repeatedly kick a guy in the head when he's down? Elbow him to the throat? Why is that? Because you can kill somebody that way. I wouldn't plan on killing anybody. But if faced with deadly danger -- a mugger with a knife or club or gun, or a MMA champion who, according to what they have to say about it, is unbeatable, and who might want to break my neck, then whatever tool is necessary to stop that is morally and legally allowed. How do I know how bad he wants to hurt me? I can't read his mind. I mean, I'm just an old guy who trains in a silly art, what chance would I have against a MMA player who decides to stomp my head in just because he didn't balance his steroid stack right? I stipulated it up front that I wouldn't do well in a ring against a kid younger than the watch I'm wearing. But since I have no intentions of climbing into that ring, if he jumps me on the street, we use my rules: Remember what Harvey said to Butch Cassidy: Rules? No rules in a knife fight!
Back on the original topic, Matt has a couple gyms. He's done some tapes. He had a very famous MMA fighter work out in his space for a little while. I'm not quite sure why he's considered a great authority on MA in general. He hasn't - to the best of my knowledge - competed in much less won any major MMA competitions. I can't think of anyone his franchise has produced who has either. He's huge. He's strong, and he obviously has good BJJ. If Pride, K-1 and UFC are the final proof of one's knowledge and skill I don't see where his authority comes from.
"I guess, the 6'-8", former boxer, former soldier, BJJ Blackbelt is still pouting from getting tossed by a un-named, Pacific NW Silat Instructor, Green Beret, some years ago when he was still a Blue Belt in BJJ." Would someone please describe what exactly happened between Guru Plink and Mr. Thornton? Did Mr. Thornton "challenge" Guru Plink and they fought or was this a training/sparring encounter or what? Thanks PS Sorry for naming the Un-named
Nothing so juvenile. When Guru Plinck taught at one of the Straight Blast Gyms a few years back he and Matt rolled some. Despite the disadvantage in size, age, pure strength and grappling training - Guru Plinck's formal grappling instruction was high school wrestling and a few months playing around with Judo - he better than held his own. His overall skill saw him through even though it wasn't in precisely the same area. This was in the era when BJJ was supposed to be unbeatable, before other forms of grappling really got their just due. I wasn't there, but people who were students at SBG at the time (and who have personally asked that their names not be used) said that their teacher wasn't very happy with the outcome.
Wow, guys are funny aren’t they? I’m not referring to either Guru Plink or Mr. Thornton. I respect the material that both put forth. That’s why I became so intrigued with the talk of some type of confrontation between them. With comments like: “Thorton made the comment that silat is a silly art, and yet, several of us know of a silat teacher who somehow managed to use his art to give Thornton a lesson back when he was a BJJ bluebelt” “….. I will drop all pretense of secrecy here. If Stevan Plinck drop-kicked Matt into another time zone and Matt doesn't have the stones to own up to his shortcomings, the *probably* good knowledge he has about grappling altogether is thrown into a suspicious light, to say the least. Character counts.” And “Because Matt lost doesn't make grappling bad. because Stevan won doesn't make Silat great. It is ever the artist not the...” It came off like they fought when Thornton was a blue belt. In reality, Guru Plink “better than held his own” while rolling with a blue belt that had significant physical advantages and reportedly said blue belt (Thornton) was mad about it. Wow, to funny! Thank you for explaining things Tellner.
Yet again, the myths become the received 'truth' Right, now speaking from personal experience of so called 'street fights' and not 'gym theory', anyone who believes one will pan out the same as a sports contest is seriously, if not dangerously deluded. In a real life situation an opponent is hardly going to square up to you, do a bit of ducking and diving and grapple you to the ground before applying an armbar That is sport and entertainment. Furthermore, if you are attacked without weapons you stand a pretty good chance of survival. I should know, I have spent time in a coma as the result of getting my head stamped on, yet I'm still here If you are attacked by someone with a knife, you stand a good chance of dying. So, to make outrageous claims such as the old 'if it doesn't work in the ring it won't work on the street' crap, is downright delusional and dangerous.
Ok, so knives, sticks, biting, gouging and ripping, icepicks, garottes, chains, concrete blocks... none of these things work, because they don't work in MMA rules. Unless I'm misinterpreting this, it was a rather myopic thing to say. 1. You are talking about two different things. Ring games and TRUE no-holds-barred fighting are different animals. Who would win between me and Mr. Emilienko in a ring? Mr. Emilienko. I would have no chance at all even if he didn't go to grappling. If we both had knives, I'd back up the truck and sell him to the Armour meatpacking company as pre-sliced dried beef. I have very little doubt about that. If you have a knife, strength and large-muscle speed are almost entirely gone with the exception of footwork. In fact you can be faster than I am but if I have timing and footwork I can keep out of range of your slashes and stab you in the hand every time you try, almost one hundred percent of the time. If you try to crash or go to grappling you're now in a 50-50 position. It's more than likely that both of us will be fatally stabbed. Good going, smart guy. 2. Ever notice that a lot of these MMA people are not very bright? Right here, I am questioning Mr. Thornton's intelligence. In fact I think from everything he's said on this subject, he's a twigbrained idiot. He's not thinking. I would go so far as to say that he doesn't have much capacity to think. I think MMA attracts a certain subset of the pro-wrestling set. If they weren't watching UFC, they'd be watching WWF. Why? Because MMA sells the total lie, the utter bill of goods, that a fight reduces to "Grog Smash." It doesn't, plain and simple. "Grog Smash" and naked aggression are a great deal of it of course, and I think that people who think that there's no athleticism and fitness in the equation are deceiving themselves. But if there are weapons in the equation it's a whole different ball of wax. Matt Thornton, by most accounts, teaches good MMA. I don't dispute that. He teaches great athleticism, speed, strength and grappling skills, all of which are supremely important in ringfighting. But to say that it dominates silat or ANY knife art, including ninjitsu, is so totally stupid that I wonder if he might have taken too many shots to the head. Seriously. In fact, an unarmed MMA person has terrible odds against an untrained crackhead with a sharpened saw blade. An aside: Ever notice how silat people tend to be smart? I wonder why that is. Maybe because it's not simple to understand but offers great dividends to those who take the time.
Well, from 10 minutes worth of googling, it seems that Matt Thornton spends most of his time making disparaging remarks towards not only Silat, but most other so called TMAs too.
Well, Matt Thornton is an idiot. He knows nobody is going to challenge him to a knife fight because we aren't that stupid. Whereas he can challenge people to MMA matches with impunity because nobody is going to get disemboweled. Wonder how much Matt would want to grapple with a gaping abdominal wound.
can you not see the flaw in your logic? So you have a knife, lets say he has a gun what then? (incase you still dont see the pattern, thatwas rhetoric) By your logic, no one is training unless they know nuclear-fu
