Aren't they all...

[Steve]

Yes but each of those have specifics under them. Like TKD has Moo Doo Kwan or some other lineage. Karate has many styles or specifics under it as does KungFu. MMA just seems like a big wrapper around everything.

I like looking at Karate, TKD, KungFu and seeing distinct difference in each style of each. WTF vs ITF. Even within org understanding the differences between what Kwan each WTF or ITF style came from.

Even in MMA I like looking at each fighters base art and trying to see or identify the base style. You can definitely tell someone that holds a high ranking belt in an art vs. someone that just came up in an MMA club or school. Even Jujitsu has distinct differences that you can look at and tell hey that is Japanese vs. Brazilian and such.

I guess MMA is its own art but if that is the case then many that compete in MMA surely don't do MMA but are just as effective. What I mean is that it has a hint of MMA but the majority of the flavor is based in other TMA's that are clearly seen vs. a pure "MMA" artist.

This is true, but if we grant that MMA is evolving into its own discrete style, it's very young. While "styles" such as Pankration and Vale Tudo have been around for a long time, "MMA" is still relatively young (truly only about 10 years old under the current rules). Give it time, and I'm sure that many people will develop substyles with nifty names.

Tez, painting Americans with a broad brush is largely what makes you sound anti-American. Throwing words like "patriotism" around in a pejorative way and making sweeping generalizations about us is exactly what I meant. I don't take credit for things I haven't done, and while I do consider myself to be patriotic, I have what I believe is a realistic view of what America has and hasn't done in the world (both good and bad). In this case, you're just ignoring facts and trying to cloud that by suggesting that I'm being a homer.

Chute Boxe trained in Vale Tudo. As I said before, vale tudo and other NHB organizations existed well before the UFC. I'm not saying otherwise. What I AM saying is that it wasn't until the UFC held their first PPV event under what are now the unified rules for MMA back in 2000 that the sport of MMA evolved into what it is now. You don't have to like the UFC (and I can completely understand why you don't), but to ignore the contribution to the growth of the sport, the standardization of the rules, and a general improvement of conditions overall for the fighters just isn't correct.

 

[Gorilla]

What a great thread!!!!!!!!!

 

[Tez3]

This is true, but if we grant that MMA is evolving into its own discrete style, it's very young. While "styles" such as Pankration and Vale Tudo have been around for a long time, "MMA" is still relatively young (truly only about 10 years old under the current rules). Give it time, and I'm sure that many people will develop substyles with nifty names.

Tez, painting Americans with a broad brush is largely what makes you sound anti-American. Throwing words like "patriotism" around in a pejorative way and making sweeping generalizations about us is exactly what I meant. I don't take credit for things I haven't done, and while I do consider myself to be patriotic, I have what I believe is a realistic view of what America has and hasn't done in the world (both good and bad). In this case, you're just ignoring facts and trying to cloud that by suggesting that I'm being a homer.

Chute Boxe trained in Vale Tudo. As I said before, vale tudo and other NHB organizations existed well before the UFC. I'm not saying otherwise. What I AM saying is that it wasn't until the UFC held their first PPV event under what are now the unified rules for MMA back in 2000 that the sport of MMA evolved into what it is now. You don't have to like the UFC (and I can completely understand why you don't), but to ignore the contribution to the growth of the sport, the standardization of the rules, and a general improvement of conditions overall for the fighters just isn't correct.

Why would you think that I was meaning patriotic in a bad way? I don't in the least. And what is a homer?

You seem to think that the UFC was responsible for a lot of things, it wasn't. Do you think all fighters were treated badly until the UFC came along? What makes you think that fighters weren't actually treated better before the UFC started? You seem to think the UFC has done a lot of things it hasn't. The rules for example, what makes you think the rules used in the UFC are actually used anywhere else? Again you are talking about America, I'm talking about the world.
The sport of MMA was what it is now before the UFC started, it was that in Japan several years before UFC1 which wasn't MMA. As I've said before we in Europe and the UK took our lead from Japan (Shooto) which had proper MMA shows before the UFC, fighters weren't treated badly, nor were conditions so bad the UFC had to rescue everyone from them, plus the rules for MMA were set before the UFC set theirs. You see how gving the credit to the UFC looks? they don't actually treat their fighters that well btw. I can tell you now I treat mine a damn sight better and we've had three fighters on our shows that have been in the UFC.

What the UFC gets the credit for is having the money to turn MMA into a relation of WWE and show business. It's a business after all and is there only to make money, no other reason. Thats not to say Shooto and Pride didn't, but they didn't appeal to the lowest demoninator the way the UFC does, their publicity was martial arts not yob orientated.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Two ways to go with this. One school of thought is that MMA is a ruleset, not an art. Anyone training in any style that leads to competition under the codified MMA ruleset in a sanctioned event is a Mixed Martial Artist. This is whether they train aikido, tai chi and leg wrestling or any other combination of styles.

Another school of thought is that MMA has become a discrete art all on its own, as a result of advances made through the competition. The transitions between striking, clinching and groundwork, regardless of background, tend to look very similar. The techniques that work do so regardless of whether they are derived from TKD or Muay Thai, etc. So, what we're seeing is an evolution toward a style called "MMA" and that if one goes to an "MMA" school, the curriculum will be very similar to any other, much as one boxing gym will teach skills similar to any other.

I was going to respond with a lengthy post, but I think that Steve pretty much nails it with this.

The only comment that I will add is that MMA has become an art all on its own as a result of athletes seeking to succeed in a specific environment. That environment is such that things such as transitions between striking, clinching and ground work are essential, and so in order to remain competitive, paricipants train to be good at those things.

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Why would you think that I was meaning patriotic in a bad way? I don't in the least. And what is a homer?

Essentially, a homer is someone who is credits his or her 'home' country with everything and who views his or her 'home' country as superior.

Or he was talking about Homer Simpson.

Daniel

 

[Tez3]

It's come to my attention that people think those who train MMA train all the arts separately, we don't. MMA is trained as MMA not separate styles. Perhaps some places are training people in Muay Thai in one lesson then BJJ in another but that's not how it works usually, standup is taught as literally a mixture of MT, karate, TKD and boxing while the groundwork is taught as a mixture of BJJ, Judo and westling. There is no separation in styles it all literally flows into each other. If there's people training with experience of other styles such as JKD, WC or Aikido etc that too will be added in to the mix as as it works. This is probably what makes MMA a style or an art, its not cross training as that is doing it all separately. Time constraints may mean that a lesson is all standup or all groundwork at times but its still all taught in together.
We don't train arts separately then bring them into competition.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

...mixed in some way? Why is MMA considered an art. I thought it was just taking multiple art styles and mixing them. In some way aren't all arts mixed?

Yes, though what is mixed is not always completely unique. Kickboxing is mixed, as it is both kicks and punches, but is all striking.

...Don’t they all have some striking and grappling?

No. WTF sport TKD is a good example of a definite no, as it has zero grapples. On the other end of the spectrum, Judo and BJJ have no strikes to my knowledge.

So how did MMA become an art unto itself?

I rather liked Steve's answer to this.

If I take Karate and mix it with Jujitsu is that not just Karate and Jujitsu? Why call this MMA? why not call this I have studied Karate and Jujitsu? Then when pitted with a situation you recall from your training the best technique from either art to use at that time.

Most often, when Asian martial arts are mixed or combined, the art is named something specific.

Also, mixing implies putting the techniques together in such a way as to have them work synergystically and to establish a training methodology that is different from what you would do in either one separately.

If MMA is to be considered its own art then anyone that studied multiple arts should just say I am an MMA practitioner. How did a generic term use to convey that multiple art practitioners become the defacto art. If I see someone kick someone in the head I say “Wow, looks like he knows some karate or TKD”. Not he is doing MMA. If I see someone leg lock or arm bar someone, I say “That guy know BJJ”, not that he knows MMA.

It is generally difficult to ID an entire system based soley on individual or a small number of techniques, as there is a ton of overlap between many arts. It is the curriculum and training regimen, along with the philosophy behind the training, all taken as a whole where systems tend to become distinct.

Another distinction is whether the students are learning the arts individually and then training for an event or learing them synergystically at an "MMA gym" that would further distinguish an MMA practitioner from a specific art practitioner.

Now there are some schools that do call themselves MMA but clearly say we teach TKD, Boxing, Judo, and BJJ, or some other arts, and they have instructors that are disciplined in one of each said arts.

Those schools generally offer those arts separately and have focused MMA training wherein elements of those arts are taught with the end goal of using them in competition. This enables them to bring in students who just want to train in taekwondo, boxing, judo, or BJJ, but who have no interest in MMA. It also enables their MMA students to gain further depth in the constituent arts without going to another school. These schools usually have qualified instructors in the individual arts as well as a well developed MMA program.

But then there are schools that call themselves MMA schools and have no such single art masters that understands or teaches any one art. And it is these schools that have their students go out to other schools to learn kicking or to learn BJJ, or Boxing and so on. Not that they tell the student to do this but I have seen the students seek this on their own to get a better sense of that aspect of the game.

Now you have a dynamic where a skill set of the most needed skills for the octagon are taught as a hybrid system with students going to the parent or related arts to further enhance specific parts of their training. Happens in TMA too. There are hapkidoists who learn hapkido as a whole and then train in either parent or related grappling arts in order to broaden their grappling.

Now if MMA is an art unto itself then wouldn't be enough to just learn the MMA style? You should not need to now BJJ, or Karate, or Judo. You should truly only need MMA.

Reallistically, you only 'need' the MMA skillset to be able to compete. MMA is so young that it is not fully separated from its parent arts. Thus students looking for greater depth in the specific parts of MMA will go to the parent or related arts. As I stated before, this is not unique to MMA.

MMA to me is a bucket that you put other arts into vs. the art itself. They even list the arts that each fighter knows and what belt rank he has in each on during the events. Not that this guy is a MMA belt holder.

That is another way to look at MMA, and in my opinion, a perfectly valid way to view it.

So is MMA an art or just a title to convey that someone has knowledge of multiple TMA (that includes CMA and all other *MA)?

At this point in time, at least in the US, saying MMA implies that one has trained to fight in a specific type of competition.

If you consider it an art, then it is a sportive art, much as Judo, Boxing, BJJ, or wrestling. It is geared towards competion and the skill set has use outside of the ring.

If you are talking about a person with training in multiple arts, then that is what they are. Period. I hold black belts in four different arts. I do not consider myself a mixed martial artist.

Arts that combine two or more parent arts (JKD, Kajukenbo, Hapkido) but are not specifically sportive are generally termed as hybrid arts rather than mixed martial arts.

Daniel

 

[Tez3]

Places that teach MT, BJJ etc separately aren't training MMA, they are maybe training for an MMA competition but can't be said to be training MMA. The training as the competition is doing all the styles 'mixed up' to make an effective fighting system. As more and more youngsters come into the sport they are learning MMA as a complete system in it's own right. Along with teaching fighting, ringcraft, fitness, conditioning are all part of it.
Like cookery there is an art to mixing styles in such a way as they work together effectively, just being able to do a few styles won't make you an MMA fighter even though you are very good at what you do.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Places that teach MT, BJJ etc separately aren't training MMA, they are maybe training for an MMA competition but can't be said to be training MMA.

Also, there is an element of attaching the term, 'MMA' due to its popularity.

Daniel

 

[Tez3]

Also, there is an element of attaching the term, 'MMA' due to its popularity.

Daniel

In these days of recession I guess that adding something that will get people in through the doors means you can keep the rest of the training going so I tend not to disapprove too much as long as they don't send us people to be matched up they claim are fighters, it's a case of knowing your limitations.

 

[Steve]

Places that teach MT, BJJ etc separately aren't training MMA, they are maybe training for an MMA competition but can't be said to be training MMA. The training as the competition is doing all the styles 'mixed up' to make an effective fighting system. As more and more youngsters come into the sport they are learning MMA as a complete system in it's own right. Along with teaching fighting, ringcraft, fitness, conditioning are all part of it.
Like cookery there is an art to mixing styles in such a way as they work together effectively, just being able to do a few styles won't make you an MMA fighter even though you are very good at what you do.

This isn't strictly true. I agree with your analogy, and that MMA fighters need to train to integrate the styles. But I think you'd agree that many MMA fighters train MMA along with BJJ, Muay Thai, Wrestling, Boxing or whatever else, sometimes with different instructors at different schools. Look at GSP as just one example of a guy who looks for the best schools teaching each individual discipline. In addition to training "MMA," he also trains each style seperately.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Such a great discussion. And I happen to agree with what Chris Parker laid out above. I posted something close to that in another topic in the TKD thread but not to such detail.

However the thing that i have a problem with is the generic title of Mixed Martial Arts or MMA. Since we agree that it is it's own art then why use the term MMA as if it is a mixing of arts. It should MMA as in the sense of the first UFC seems to apply but the art as it has developed or is should adopt a name, not use what I call a bucket or place holder name.

As Tez has pointed out. There are other arts that followed the same path as the MMA art has today and for the most part is similar. These arts also developed by blending arts if you will, to create what they are today. The term MMA to me just seems lazy and feels thoughtless. It would be like calling a SUV of today a mixed transportation vehicle. It is not a car it is not a truck, but I am too lazy to come up with a name for it so I will call it a mixed transportation vehicle.

By using this MMA title I feel like it robs future arts that may be developed of any validity. The name will always encompass any new art that is truly different. Those arts and even past arts for the most part now get lump into this MMA title robbing them of their respect to me.

Problem with the term 'Mixed Martial Arts' is that martial arts is an unfocused general category that contains general categories which are further subdivided again and again, depending upon how specific one wants to be.

Karate is every bit as nebulous a term as MMA if one takes the time to look at the many ryus that are formally counted as karate, the demarkation between Okinawan and Japanese karate, and then karate based or karate-esque styles, such as tangsudo and taekwondo.

Piggybacking onto your SUV analogy (I rather like Mixed Transportation Vehicle, as it would be more descriptive), the only people that care about the categorization of vehicles is the DOT, the EPA, the DMV, the markeing departments of the auto industry, automotive jounralists, sport sactioning bodies, and enthusiasts who are so into cars that they invent categories when they run out of them.

The rest of us simply need a vehicle to drive and find one that does what we need it to do.

Martial arts are much the same. Categorization is nice, but the people who really care are the IOC, governments with a stake in a martial art for nationalistic reasons, MA federations, sport sanctioning bodies, MA journalists and historians, and enthusiasts like us who are so into the martial arts that we invent new categories when we run out of existing ones.

Lets face it, we love to categorize and debate this stuff because we just plain love the martial arts and its what we are really, really into. I think that it is great that we can apply our intellects in these discussions.

But we should never lose site of the practical reasons that we study the arts and know when its time to stop typing and start training.

Daniel

 

[Tez3]

This isn't strictly true. I agree with your analogy, and that MMA fighters need to train to integrate the styles. But I think you'd agree that many MMA fighters train MMA along with BJJ, Muay Thai, Wrestling, Boxing or whatever else, sometimes with different instructors at different schools. Look at GSP as just one example of a guy who looks for the best schools teaching each individual discipline. In addition to training "MMA," he also trains each style seperately.

It's not an analogy, it how we train over here. GSP is a full time pro fighter, we only have about three of them in the whole UK, the rest of us train MMA in one place, we all have jobs to go to and limited funds, GSP earns his living at MMA so can afford to train anywhere he needs to, he can travel to the best gyms, have the best coaches come to him even. We train a couple of nights a week maybe a seminar on an odd weekend so yes MMA is trained in one place as one style. MMA isn't about the few pro fighters it's about the thousands who aren't. I don't speak for the pros I speak for everyman.

 

[Steve]

It's not an analogy, it how we train over here. GSP is a full time pro fighter, we only have about three of them in the whole UK, the rest of us train MMA in one place, we all have jobs to go to and limited funds, GSP earns his living at MMA so can afford to train anywhere he needs to, he can travel to the best gyms, have the best coaches come to him even. We train a couple of nights a week maybe a seminar on an odd weekend so yes MMA is trained in one place as one style. MMA isn't about the few pro fighters it's about the thousands who aren't. I don't speak for the pros I speak for everyman.

When you said it's like cookery, that's an analogy. Don't do this to me, Tez. My head will pop like a balloon.

Over here in the USA, it's not uncommon for even one "MMA" school to have different instructors or an instructor who is qualified to teach distinct styles. Jeff Hougland runs the sister school to mine. While our school focuses primarily on BJJ, Jeff is a pro fighter who teaches MMA. I'd guess that his school is very much like the ones you're talking about. Small school with a mix of people from pro fighters, amateurs and a bunch of people training for a bunch of different reasons. He teaches adults and kids. Even within one school, however, the styles are respected and taught discretely, as well as integrated into a fighting system. In addition to MMA classes, he has striking classes and BJJ classes, both gi and no-gi where rank is awarded.

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. I'm saying that you're doing what you accuse me of doing, which is speaking globally about things that might not be the same everywhere. In your area, I don't doubt that you're correct. I don't know. But if you look at the guys coming up in North America and where they train, their "MMA" schools often continue to teach style specific classes in addition to MMA.

 

[ATC]

...in North America and where they train, their "MMA" schools often continue to teach style specific classes in addition to MMA.

This is what I see mostly here (in the USA also). Many schools will have some sort of striking art that is taught (pick one) and some ground art (again pick one). Then they have classes where "MMA" is taught, which is a blending of the two arts. They may even have the two other arts (striking and ground) instructors assist the MMA instructor at times.

Cung Le's school here in San Jose is like this as are many of the Ernie Reyes "West coast Martial Art's" schools here in the area, not to mention all the no name (or less famous name) schools. You can choose to do what you like at these schools. Like many have said, it is a business as well. So I guess the more you have to offer the more business you can generate.

 

[ATC]

I have been giving this thread some thought and have looked at MMA as it applies to me. I know I had (may still have) one way of thinking when I first posted this but now I am questioning that thinking.

For the most part I agreed with Chris Parker in that you could not sufficiently train multiple arts as they would clash leading to each art being less effective as you would not be versed in either.

After looking at myself and having studied multiple arts I may be 2nd guessing myself. I currently study and teach TKD, but studied Boxing and a few other arts in the past. I have studied wrestling in Jr. and Sr. high school.

I can tell you that whenever messing around (sparring) in a non formal way, (not a competition or within any structured classic art sense) I tend to use all of what I know or have been taught. I may start off in a classic sideways TKD stance but when the opportunity presents itself I seem to have no problem in squaring up into a boxing stance to fire off a few punching combos. Now in these little messing around situation we never go to the ground but I can tell you when you get that dork friend that likes to sneak up behind you and tackle you, I can instinctively wrestle and use moves that were taught to me years ago.

Now I may not be the best boxer or the best wrestler or even TKD practitioner for that matter, but the techniques from each are there. I can also use these techniques from each when needed. I have even use some hand trapping techniques from my very limited Chin Na days.

Now it may be that those particular arts are what they call complimentary arts to one another and it is as simple as that.

Any others out there that practice or have practiced multiple arts. What is your experience. Can you flip between arts instinctively as techniques call for them, or do you find it difficult to do so.

 

[MJS]

I have been giving this thread some thought and have looked at MMA as it applies to me. I know I had (may still have) one way of thinking when I first posted this but now I am questioning that thinking.

For the most part I agreed with Chris Parker in that you could not sufficiently train multiple arts as they would clash leading to each art being less effective as you would not be versed in either.

After looking at myself and having studied multiple arts I may be 2nd guessing myself. I currently study and teach TKD, but studied Boxing and a few other arts in the past. I have studied wrestling in Jr. and Sr. high school.

I can tell you that whenever messing around (sparring) in a non formal way, (not a competition or within any structured classic art sense) I tend to use all of what I know or have been taught. I may start off in a classic sideways TKD stance but when the opportunity presents itself I seem to have no problem in squaring up into a boxing stance to fire off a few punching combos. Now in these little messing around situation we never go to the ground but I can tell you when you get that dork friend that likes to sneak up behind you and tackle you, I can instinctively wrestle and use moves that were taught to me years ago.

Now I may not be the best boxer or the best wrestler or even TKD practitioner for that matter, but the techniques from each are there. I can also use these techniques from each when needed. I have even use some hand trapping techniques from my very limited Chin Na days.

Now it may be that those particular arts are what they call complimentary arts to one another and it is as simple as that.

Any others out there that practice or have practiced multiple arts. What is your experience. Can you flip between arts instinctively as techniques call for them, or do you find it difficult to do so.

I train in a few different arts, and IMO, I have no issues with anything clashing or having any issues with being less effective. If anything, its made me more effective. Can I flip between Kenpo and Arnis, and back to Kenpo again, with no issues.

IMO, the issues/difficulty comes, when people think too much about whats going on. Thats the difference....I'm not thinking. I'm just going with the flow, as the late GM Remy Presas (Modern Arnis) used to say.

Some people think that if you train more than 1, you'll never be capable of learning. I disagree. For me, I'm not in any rush. Never have, nor will I ever be a rank hound. If/when it happens, it happens. I take things a little at a time. I've gone thru the entire Arnis curriculum. I passed my black belt exam. One day, during a lesson, I asked one of my teachers if there was anything else to learn, he said no....I already know all the material. Now, what I do, is focus on what I know, and I find things on my own. So, the learning never ends. Personally, I dont feel that you need to learn more techs, more kata, etc. Expand on what you already know, and you'll find things on your own.

 

[teekin]

Hi ATC,

This philosophy can be spiritual (Aikido), political (Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu), personal (Judo), cultural (BJJ), or physical (MMA). The important thing to realise is that this philosophy must be intact for there to be any real strength, as this philosophy is where the art draws all it's attributes from (power source, movement, ranges, physical aspects, and far more). By trying to have multiple differing philosophies you are simply creating internal conflict and confusion, leading to ineffective applications of techniques (by using an inappropriate power source or movement for the technique of another system, or worse, by attempting to switch between power sources and movement systems!). I'll explain further....

When you train, you are ingraining the methods of a particular art (it's expression of it's philosophy) as an unconcious responce. And the thing about the unconscious is that it will always choose the best of any options presented to it. So if you give it multiple options (multiple power sources etc), all you are doing is giving it more options to get in the way.


Did any of that make sense?

Chris, this really helped clear some thigs up for me, thanks.

Lori

 

[Tez3]

Steve, I haven't talked about this as a global thing, I always say that this is what we do here not what you do. We've already had the discussion that TKD seems different in the States, it would seem that MMA is also.
Here we took the Japanese way of training in MMA as they were competing in MMA as we know it now a few years before the first UFC which wasn't MMA at first.
Too many people are taking what the professional MMA fighters are able to do as what should be done, they can train for 8 hours a day, thats two weeks training for us.
We train it as MMA in each class and every gym/club I know here does that also. It truely is mixed martial arts. ou train all the techniques you need together, thats how we do it. I can't say any thing other than that. We don't train arts separately and we only train what we need out of each art. BTW if you use a boxers stance in MMA you get taken down, there's a stance we use in MMA thats wider.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Steve, I haven't talked about this as a global thing, I always say that this is what we do here not what you do. We've already had the discussion that TKD seems different in the States, it would seem that MMA is also.
Here we took the Japanese way of training in MMA as they were competing in MMA as we know it now a few years before the first UFC which wasn't MMA at first.
Too many people are taking what the professional MMA fighters are able to do as what should be done, they can train for 8 hours a day, thats two weeks training for us.
We train it as MMA in each class and every gym/club I know here does that also. It truely is mixed martial arts. ou train all the techniques you need together, thats how we do it. I can't say any thing other than that. We don't train arts separately and we only train what we need out of each art. BTW if you use a boxers stance in MMA you get taken down, there's a stance we use in MMA thats wider.

Im just curious, and should probably ask this in the tkd section, but which aspects/techniques from tkd (if any) do you guys incorporate? Ive noticed watching MMA (not neccessarilly UFC) that I see a lot of little things creeping in that look inherant to tkd but obviously it is never credited to tkd. Which parts of the art have you found useful in MMA training?