Matt explaining some of his philosophy/principles of martial arts training.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2068450760833041053&q=matt+thornton

Has Matt ever competed in MMA or any contests?

Yes. He came very close to defeating Ricco Rodriguez in a grappling event. It's his only loss.

That's about as clear as it gets.

i am a big fan

Uh, duh to the video. I think everything he demonstrated has it's place.

Where can I find his fight record?

I don't think it's about his fight record, but common sense.

He's right in his theory, and has put it together the best I've heard by a mixed art school, but he's wrong in saying that "99.9%" of schools operate with "dead patterns." That may be true of a lot of generic martial arts schools that have no real fighting component in their curriculum, but there are a whole bunch of ways that classical styles incorporate "aliveness."

some traditional schools may, but I must admit, I have trained in a lot of different martial arts schools, and I think that he's right. Even my judo coach doesn't really teach us or give us technical practice in an alive way, we learn in a dead way, and then spar live. I wish that there were more teachers like Matt Thornton and Tim Cartmell who were integrating these things that have such potential in a meaningful and systematic way, so that others could learn so much easier than all of us have.

I know that there are certain systems, that are either 1) aren't created with a realistic fighting component and say so( which I don't feel is a crime), or 2) aren't created with a realistic fightng component but try to create the illusion that they are( a crime), but I've met several practitioners in my travels who are quite content to learn and teach in the classical systems( karate, aikido and tai chi to name my main three) who are all very capable fighters. I've been very fortunate to live and train in a major American city, so perhaps my experience has been different from some people's. But to say that "99.9%" of the teachers and systems are wrong is inaccurate and an insult to to our fellow martial artists.

I agree, because you ott to know.

Stephen,

Who were the teachers you had in Tai Chi and Aikido that really knew how to fight with them? I would like to see these styles done in real fighting.

Wow, Bob. That's hilarious.

Moe, I'm not sure that it's OK for me to go posting teacher names without their permission, so I won't do that. But I'm kind of suprised that people who care enough to go to a martial arts website underestimate the classic stylists so much.

Since Aikido blackbelt tests include being attacked by three attackers completely freestyle I find a lot of blackbelts are able to handle an uncooperartive attacker. I've been thrown around, locked out, and had some very sensitive nerve endings nailed without cooperating at all( believe me!).

There are a lot of Tai Chi fighters out there. I studied with three in New York City. My one teacher's whole rep was that he "knew how to fight." And believe me, he did. He was a silver medalist in Taiwan's national games as a fighter. He fought and pushed hands and easily handled all of us without any cooperation on our parts.He's an expert striker. And the others two were awesome fighters and downright scary people.

Actually, the best fighters I've seen have been classic stylists. I'm not criticizing mixed arts people, but it's wrong to say that classic people can't fight.

Stephen,

Thank you for your answer. I got the William Chen reference.

I believe some classical martial art people can fight. It's just I've never seen them enter and win any realistic fighting competition (I know sanshou fighters can fight, but they are mixed martial artists, not classical style people).

I guess it was kind of obvious, huh? He's a great practitioner and any of his students will tell you that he respects all martial artists. Just felt weird throwing his name around.

I agree that mixed arts guys do very well in the full contact fighting. Some of those guys are amazing! I've also seen a judoka win a match hands down in UFC on one of those DVD's.

My only other opinion I'd like to offer is that certain arts and tactics, particularly the classic internal stuff, really don't apply to UFC competition style fighting because they incorporate deadly force. Hsing Yi, Tai Chi and Ba Gua were used by body guards and soldiers to kill a person in one shot by striking vital areas or breaking bones. That's just a different set of intentions and attacks than a submission or knock out style UFC fight. Not that I'd want any part of that either!

"...Since Aikido blackbelt tests include being attacked by three attackers completely freestyle I find a lot of blackbelts are able to handle an uncooperartive attacker."

I've witnessed and been involved in numerous Aikido test(as one of the three attackers)and believe me the attacks are far from realistic. It's fun to be involved in and beautiful to watch...but not real.
The same blackbelts who "beat" three and four attackers in their test, couldn't defend my takedowns or submissions, "one on one", in a "live and realistic" setting. I had four blackbelts in my class and I had only been in the class a year, but I was a wrestler and had done a few months of BJJ and they couldn't stop me. I stayed another year for the other great aspects of the art i truly appreciated, but none of the aspects had to do with fighting. No matter how many times I took them down or tapped them out, they wouldn't change their training method.

I'm speaking of my own experiences, not from stories past down from 100 years, that no one knows is true or not.

My Aikido and traditional JJ instructors were all great men and women, but as far as real fighting, they didn't have the proper training method or physical condition to deal with someone even like an aggressive angry high school linebacker.

A hardworking construction worker, garbage man, police officer, dancer or farmer are just as capable as a traditional martial artist.

You see it's not about deadly strikes that killed people 100 years ago or throwing someone with "Ki" or "Chi", rather it's about training method, attitude and athletic conditioning.

Those UFC fighters are good because of how they train not what they train. They are effect because of the attitude it requires to train in such a way and the conditioning required.

You don't have to be a tradional MA or UFC fighter to be conditioned and have an aggressive attitute (at the right time).

I beat those blackbelts not because I was better at Aikido, but because my previous training at the time of wrestling, Muay thai, boxing and very limited BJJ at the time developed better attributes and allow me a forum to use the skills I was taught against a "real" 3 dimiensional resisting opponent.

They had skills, but no platform to exercise those skills against true resistance.

They were conditioned, but not for a real anaerobic burst than incorporated stress and tension.

I don't expect to change any minds, for even knocking some traditional artist out or submitting them still hasn't changed some I actually know.

You believe what you want and create your own experiences.

I think that Backarcher has made the point very well.

I think Aikido is beautiful, but I have never seen any "realistic" sparring in any Aikido school.

i trained in a Tomiki-ryu aikido school for a while (it's very judo influenced), and once or twice there were little hints of decent training and resistance, but truthfully they were very few and far between. Like Tai Chi, aikido attracts a certain crowd...

... and like taiji, it is rare to find an aikido teacher who effectively uses striking to set up the locks and throws -- even though the use of a variety of punches, pokes and arm thrusts were part of the original intention when you see the old fellas on the old films.

Being "one of those people" who was attracted to Aikido and Tai Chi, I guess I'm pretty qualified to respond to you.

I think it's obvious to everyone that strength and conditioning is important. I never said otherwise.

I was around Aikido full time for six years and interacted with all types. Those that knew they couldn't fight and didn't want to, those that didn't and were deluded into thinking they could( and they frustrated me too, Archer) and those that definitely could-my teacher and a few head students included. And I met some pretty tough customers at the seminars as well.To dismiss a whole art because the guys at the dojo where you spent one or two years couldn't hack it is a little short sighted, don't ya think?

Again, your outright dismissal of the classic styles as "hundred year old stories" sounds like you've formed your opinion with something other than actual investigation and experience . Where have you been in the Chinese arts? Who have you met and fought with? What styles have you practiced and mastered?

If your answer is "nowhere", "no one" and "none" then I think this is the biased opinion of a mixed artist speaking. So, in your own words, you have created your own reality.

Internal arts guys are a different breed. I think Tim would verify this. The guys who possess a high level of skill do not display it openly. Hard for Amercians to believe, I know, but it's true. I've seen (and felt...yeesh)plenty in my travels, by people who have no need to become known. Are they on every street corner? No. Is everyone who wrestled a few years in college a UFC champ? No.

The goals and methods of the internal styles are different than the mixed martial arts. I've found that there are great practitioners in both arenas. No need to dismiss something that you haven't adequately investigated. We all put a uniform, bow to someone and strive to better ourselves, right?