Aren't they all...

[ATC]

...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? Don’t they all have some striking and grappling? So how did MMA become an art unto itself?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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)?

Thoughts?

 

[Touch Of Death]

You can call stuff MMA but there is a dominant way of thinking. If a kenpo guy takes a TKD class to better his kicks, TKD will dominate his way of thinking about kicks; so, if you look at each individual MMA guy you can tell the parent art, or see what governs their thoughts.
Sean

 

[dancingalone]

To me, MMA is more than just studying multiple martial arts. Most people in my circles use the term as to mean the type of training needed to be successful in sporting venues such as the UFC. So that means a baseline of some striking training, generally with heavy muay thai influence. And then the so-called 'ground game' where you learn at a minimum how to defend yourself from submissions and how to avoid being fully mounted.

I hold black belts in karate, taekwondo, and aikido. Do I do MMA? Um, no, not as I believe the term has evolved.

 

[Steve]

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.

 

[Tez3]

We have to say MMA or mixed martial arts fights otherwise our posters, tickets and other publicity would have to say " a night of karate, kickboxing, TKD, TSD, Aikido, Judo, BJJ, CMA, boxing, grappling etc fighting all used in the same fight in a cage" and we can't afford all those extra words and the posters would be huge.

Here we tend to understand 'cross training' to be doing different styles with a view to learning and training in them. We understand 'MMA' to be that which is used in competitions. We tend to have clubs or gyms teaching MMA, schools are usually for the teaching of one style such as karate or TKD. We use those references as a general guide to what training is done where, not infallible but a guide nonetheless.

 

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Combined Martial Studies is what I would say we do in our school, Jujutsu is the root or base, but there is Pekiti Tarsia, Silat, Boxing, Combatives and other usefull techniques and tactics going on as well. We train it for protection. Maybe you could say we are mixing martial arts but MMA has been around long enough to take the claim to the name.

Labels are just labels we all say and to a point that is true but labels are a form of symbolisim and symbolisim is key to being a human being.

You need describing terms but in the end it's the actions that count.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Combined Martial Studies is what I would say we do in our school, Jujutsu is the root or base, but there is Pekiti Tarsia, Silat, Boxing, Combatives and other usefull techniques and tactics going on as well. We train it for protection. Maybe you could say we are mixing martial arts but MMA has been around long enough to take the claim to the name.

Labels are just labels we all say and to a point that is true but labels are a form of symbolisim and symbolisim is key to being a human being.

You need describing terms but in the end it's the actions that count.

No, its the way you do the actions that count. LOL
Sean

 

[sgtmac_46]

...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? Don’t they all have some striking and grappling? So how did MMA become an art unto itself?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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)?

Thoughts?

At some point the argument becomes mere semantics.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi ATC,

I'm going to try to add my understanding of this from watching from the outside, as well as my understanding of martial arts in general.

(Aren't they all...) mixed in some way?

No. Nor is MMA, to be completely practical about it.

Why is MMA considered an art.

For the same reason boxing can be, really.

I thought it was just taking multiple art styles and mixing them.

No it isn't, mainly because if that is all you do, it doesn't work.

In some way aren't all arts mixed?

Not at all. How much striking do you think Kyudo has? Again, though, I would say that there is no such thing as a true "mixed" martial art (a martial art created by simply combining multiple martial arts) as it simply would not work. Yes, I'm being very categorical about that, but then again every single example I have seen of every genuine martial art, classical, modern, sporting, battlefield, or any other, supports that idea.

Don’t they all have some striking and grappling?

Oh, gods, no! Not at all! You're really only looking at a tiny piece of the entire breadth and depth of what the term "martial arts" can entail if you think that, to be honest.

So how did MMA become an art unto itself?

We'll come back to this, you still have a few more questions to deal with first....

If I take Karate and mix it with Jujitsu is that not just Karate and Jujitsu?

Well, yes. Or no. Or maybe. Or sometimes. Again, I'll deal with this in a little bit, and the whole reason as to why a truly mixed martial art cannot work in that way.

Why call this MMA? why not call this I have studied Karate and Jujitsu?

Okay, we're just repeating questions in different ways here, I'll get to it soon, promise!

Then when pitted with a situation you recall from your training the best technique from either art to use at that time.

Because that is not the way it works.

If MMA is to be considered its own art then anyone that studied multiple arts should just say I am an MMA practitioner.

Er, no. MMA is really it's own distinct animal. We're getting to it!

How did a generic term use to convey that multiple art practitioners become the defacto art.

Right, now we're getting to it!

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.

Influences and sources for technical approaches, in fact, even techniques themselves, have little to nothing to do with what makes something a distinct and seperate martial art. Really, we're getting to it...

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.

Yeah, I wouldn't call that MMA. I'd call it cashing in on a popular term.

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.

So they give a bit of a taste, but nothing of real quality. If you want to workout, go for it, but if you want to develop skill, go elsewhere? Hmm.

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.

Yep.

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.

Ah, this is getting into MMA competition versus MMA training.

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)?

I would say no. I, for example, have been told that I have a fair amount of knowledge of many forms of martial arts (from both emic and etic training and research), but I am not in any way, shape, or form an MMA practitioner. For the record, my emic (inside) research and training includes my primary, chosen art of Ninjutsu, itelf made up of multiple classical Japanese traditions, Tae Kwon Do, Aikido, a modern Karate (Tani-ha Shito Ryu Shukokai), BJJ, boxing, a form of Koryu Kenjutsu, Seitei Jo, and more. My etic (outside) research includes many forms of very traditional Japanese systems (Koryu), such as Asayama Ichiden Ryu, Katori Shinto Ryu, Shindo Muso Ryu, Bokuden Ryu, and many many more, Wing Chun, Muay Thai, Hung Gar, Taiji, Xingi, many forms of karate, Judo, Krav Maga, and much much more. I have also had a fair degree of experience in a number of different RBSD systems, such as Deane Lawler's R-SULT system, Close Quarter Combatives (a military based system), ISR-Matrix, and more. And none of the above makes me an MMA practitioner.

Thoughts?

Okay, we'll deal with the aspects I said I'd come back to now.

While acknowledging that the MMA is not only the UFC, in fact that the UFC is only a promotion company for MMA competition (a fact that occasionally escapes some people, it seems....), the history of the term is linked quite closely to the original UFC Pay-Per-View events.

The original UFC was billed as a true "Mixed Martial Arts Competition", but it's important to realise that this did not mean that it was a competion between MMA practitioners, it was instead a competition between various (mixed) individual martial disciplines (it may also be valid to realise that the reason it was named the Ultimate Fighting Championship was simply so that the Gracies, when they won, could refer to their art as the "ultimate", and Royce as the "ultimate fighter". After all, the company was owned by the Gracies in the first place, the fighters were picked by the Gracies, the Gracies had just opened their first school in Hollywood, and wanted the publicity to help their school. Very good plan, I feel, and it certainly worked for them!).

So to begin with, the term Mixed Martial Art refered to a form of competition between various "pure" martial traditions. However, the most obvious responce to a single competitior winning from other disciplines is that it isn't the art that won, but the person, so they came out to show that their training could be as good, if not better than the Gracies. Almost immediately, strikers were having troubles against the grappling-trained fighters, for multiple reasons (including a lack of understanding of the environment, and the floor surface favouring the grapplers by being soft enough to encourage ground work, and being too soft for the strikers to generate the speed and power they normally would), so a number of them started to train in some elementary wrestling or ground-based grappling, initially with the idea that they would use it to "stop" the grappler, and employ their striking to finish. I remember an article in the early 90's of a guy saying he was going to bring honour and respect back to TKD in the Octogon by entering the next UFC event, and showing how TKD doesn't need anything else to be dominant.... and to prepare to show how TKD didn't need anything else but TKD training, he was cross-training with a grappling coach!

As this continued, the striking competitors got better at handling the "shoot" of the grapplers, and were landing more strikes.... so the grapplers started training more striking so they could handle the strikes, and get in a few of their own. This inevitable "arms race" lead to a far more even training regime for MMA practitioners, with certain persons developing a preference for one of another range, but the training became more and more similar, taking on it's own approach, and becoming MMA as a seperate discipline.

Now, before we get to "if I train karate and jujutsu, is that MMA, or is it just karate and jujutsu?", it may help to understand exactly what a martial art really is, and how it works, as well as how the training really works. This should hopefully explain why MMA is not a cobbling together of disparate sources (and why that wouldn't work), and in fact why cross training really isn't the answer, at least not at the beginning of training.

A martial art, it must be understood first, is not it's techniques. Many people have a tendancy to look at the outward expression of a martial art, and think that they are seeing what it actually is, but that is really not the case. A martial art, whether modern, traditional, classical, eclectic, sporting, battlefield, or any other classification, is most accurately described as a philosophy expressed through combative exercises and techniques, and in the case of sporting systems, through competition.

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.

Here's the other thing, though. Under a stress and highly adrenalised situation, your conscious mind will shut down (meaning that when someone starts talking about "in a real situation you can switch from rule-set to no rules" don't really get how it works, as that is a conscious decision-making process, and that option is removed from you under a highly adrenalised situation). This means what comes out is whatever the unconscious mind believes is powerful. Hopefully that is what you have trained in the most, but not always. And by adding conflicting concepts of what is powerful (different power sources, movement systems, philosophies etc) you are really just muddying up the waters. For this reason MMA has to be it's own distint system for it to be successful. Cross training only really works when there is a real base in one system, and the new envirnonment/knowledge gained from your cross-training in a different system is integrated back into your original system.

In other words, if you have trained for 15 years in Karate, and then start cross-training in a form of jujutsu to improve your grappling skills, stand-up and ground-based, it will be integrated into the power source and movement of your Karate, or it frankly won't really work. And in that regard, what you do will remain karate with added knowledge of grappling taken from your jujutsu training. If you are training both from the beginning, hoping to become an MMA fighter, you will need to overcome the differences, which will happen. For some reason or another (whether it is previous experience, movies, or simply that one gets "demonstrated" before the other to you as a powerful option, such as getting tapped out in BJJ straight away, but taking a while before anyone can tag you in karate, or being able to hit and kick powerfully quickly, while not being able to tap anyone in BJJ) your unconscious will form a belief as to one or the other being more powerful. And that will simply make it longer and harder for you to gain skill in the other.

So to really gain ability that you can use to generate success in any art, you need to train in that art. And MMA is it's own art, following it's own philosophy and power source, with it's technical approach taken from a variety of sources, but applied within the philosophical boundaries of MMA. And remember, MMA's philosophy is physical. It is concerned with what gains success within MMA competition (and before anyone jumps up and down, yes the training can be helpful and useful in self defence, and myriad other uses, but that is not it's primary objective. It may be the primary objective of someone training in it, but that is not the same as it being the approach of the system itself). If it doesn't gain success in competition (the testing and proving ground of MMA), it won't pass the philosophy, and won't become a part of the system. Where the particular technique comes from doesn't really matter, because as I said, that is the least of any aspect of any martial art. What matters is that it can be integrated without internal conflict into the established power source etc of the established system, in this case, MMA.

Did any of that make sense?

 

[Steve]

Chris, an excellent post, as usual. The only thing I would add is that MMA wouldn't exist as it does now without the UFC. It started in New Jersey, but it wasn't until the UFC took this ruleset codified in NJ and held an event sanctioned by the Nevada Gaming Commission that MMA began to emerge as a coherent art. The unified rules of MMA were the catalyst that brought MMA out of the back rooms of gyms and bars to where it is now, among the most popular sports in the world.

I understand that some people (Tez ) don't like the UFC, and would like to believe that MMA as it exists now has always existed, and I understand that Pankration and Vale Tudo (and Shooto, etc) predate the modern-ruleset, but this isn't a matter of opinion.

I'm not saying that criticism about the way the UFC markets their sport is unwarranted. I agree to a large extent. Dana White is a tool, but the guy, like it or not, was instrumental in the growth of MMA, and the popularity of training in associated styles has to credit the UFC with their growing success. Like it or not, the popularity of MMA (and BJJ) in Europe and North America owes much to this one promotion.

 

[Chris Parker]

Thanks, Steve. Agreed completely, in fact that was what I was hinting at when I said:

"While acknowledging that the MMA is not only the UFC, in fact that the UFC is only a promotion company for MMA competition (a fact that occasionally escapes some people, it seems....), the history of the term is linked quite closely to the original UFC Pay-Per-View events."

But, I was thinking my post was probably going to be long enough without getting into the politics of Promotion companies.....

 

[Steve]

Thanks, Steve. Agreed completely, in fact that was what I was hinting at when I said:

"While acknowledging that the MMA is not only the UFC, in fact that the UFC is only a promotion company for MMA competition (a fact that occasionally escapes some people, it seems....), the history of the term is linked quite closely to the original UFC Pay-Per-View events."

But, I was thinking my post was probably going to be long enough without getting into the politics of Promotion companies.....

Thanks, Chris. My intent really was to clarify that, while the early UFC PPV events were the genesis of modern MMA, it really wasn't until Zuffa got the Nevada State Athletic Commission to sanction an event in a return to PPV that the "art" of MMA really began to gel.

I don't disagree with you. Just adding some seasoning to the stew, so to speak.

 

[MJS]

...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? Don’t they all have some striking and grappling? So how did MMA become an art unto itself?

IMO, I'm going to say no. Now, if the art is influenced by something specifically, then I'd say yes. Take Kajukenbo for example. The founders each trained in something specific...Karate, Jujitsu, Kenpo, Boxing, took the best techs from each, and there you have Kaju. I have roundhouse kicks in Kenpo, but my art isnt influenced by Muay Thai.

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.

I've mixed some Arnis into my Kenpo, when doing techniques, but I dont call it something new, nor do I call it MMA.

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.

Personally, I dont consider it an art, in the same way I look at Kenpo, TKD, Shotokan, etc.

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.

Personally, I dont consider those places to be MMA schools. IMO, they just jumped on the bandwagon. Ex: There is a Kenpo school not far from me. 1 or 2 times a week, they offer a MMA class. I view it was a Kenpo school, not MMA.

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.

And again, I'd say those schools are misleading people. Nothing more than attempting to cash in on the MMA name.

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.

Perhaps one of the resident MMA/BJJ folks could answer this better, but IMO, as I said above, I vew MMA as taking the best of things from boxing, wrestling, BJJ, MT, etc., and forming MMA. Ex: The Lions Den. Very nice facility, very close to where I live. Anyways....they offer a wide range of things. Seperate MMA classes, seperate boxing classes, BJJ, and so on, so I could walk in there, and take a specific thing or MMA, which would encompass parts of the above.

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.

See above for my thoughts.

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)?

Thoughts?

See above.

 

[ap Oweyn]

How useful is the term "mixed martial arts" if you contend that all martial arts are mixed? It becomes redundant.

"Mixed martial arts" is a reasonably accurate description adopted by the combat athlete community to describe a fairly specific set of practices. I didn't see anyone else expressing any particular interest in that specific term until the sport caught on. Now everyone's adopting it. Despite the fundamental fact that, as you observe, mixing martial arts isn't a new concept.

So I guess I have two questions: 1) What's the sudden urge to be associated with that term when "hybrid martial art," "combined martial art," etc. would be just as descriptive and not already "taken"? And 2) where's the utility of using that term to describe all martial arts when the term "martial arts" is obviously already doing that?

What would be the point, aside from implying a connection with the sport format?


Stuart

 

[Tez3]

Chris, an excellent post, as usual. The only thing I would add is that MMA wouldn't exist as it does now without the UFC. It started in New Jersey, but it wasn't until the UFC took this ruleset codified in NJ and held an event sanctioned by the Nevada Gaming Commission that MMA began to emerge as a coherent art. The unified rules of MMA were the catalyst that brought MMA out of the back rooms of gyms and bars to where it is now, among the most popular sports in the world.

I understand that some people (Tez ) don't like the UFC, and would like to believe that MMA as it exists now has always existed, and I understand that Pankration and Vale Tudo (and Shooto, etc) predate the modern-ruleset, but this isn't a matter of opinion.

I'm not saying that criticism about the way the UFC markets their sport is unwarranted. I agree to a large extent. Dana White is a tool, but the guy, like it or not, was instrumental in the growth of MMA, and the popularity of training in associated styles has to credit the UFC with their growing success. Like it or not, the popularity of MMA (and BJJ) in Europe and North America owes much to this one promotion.

Well it's not that I would like to think that MMA has always existed in the form it has now, that makes me sound stupid but MMA as we know it started in Japan and predates the UFC. In Europe and the UK we took our cue from the Japanese with Shooto in 1989, four years before the first UFC which wasn't MMA as we know it now. the UFC took longer to sort itself into MMA. Shooto itself has been going since 1985 with clubs being formed here in Europe and the UK. As with TMAs we have tended to take our inspirations from the Japanese and its the same with MMA, Pride was the promotion of choice here and its only with its demise that the UFC has had a look in here.

 

[Steve]

Well it's not that I would like to think that MMA has always existed in the form it has now, that makes me sound stupid but MMA as we know it started in Japan and predates the UFC. In Europe and the UK we took our cue from the Japanese with Shooto in 1989, four years before the first UFC which wasn't MMA as we know it now. the UFC took longer to sort itself into MMA. Shooto itself has been going since 1985 with clubs being formed here in Europe and the UK. As with TMAs we have tended to take our inspirations from the Japanese and its the same with MMA, Pride was the promotion of choice here and its only with its demise that the UFC has had a look in here.

LOL. Tez, you sound a little anti-american sometimes, and anti-UFC all the time, but you never, ever sound stupid.

 

[ATC]

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.

 

[Steve]

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.

It's no more or less "lazy" than foot fist way, way of the fist, gentle way, intercepting fist way, empty hand or any other way.. Would it make you feel better if MMA were simply translated into some Asian language to make it sound more exotic? Truth is, most martial arts are named in a similar manner. It doesn't really matter.

 

[ATC]

It's no more or less "lazy" than foot fist way, way of the fist, gentle way, intercepting fist way, empty hand or any other way.. Would it make you feel better if MMA were simply translated into some Asian language to make it sound more exotic? Truth is, most martial arts are named in a similar manner. It doesn't really matter.

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.

 

[Tez3]

Erm, what is an SUV? We have people carriers ie Ford Galaxy and 4x4s/4 wheel drives ie Landrovers but not SUVs.

Thanks Steve! I don't mean to sound anti American but like a lot of non Americans it gets our backs up when everything is thought to be invented or founded by Americans, we understand that you are all patriotic and you love your country but sometimes you come across as a bit too enthuisiastic in what you think you invented which is a bit much for us sometimes.

The UFC, McDonalds, Ford and a great many other American companies do try to act as if they invented their particular product.

If you look at Shute Boxe Academy you will find they started training in MMA in 1991 in MT, BJJ and were in Vale Tudo competitions. In Japan prior to Shoot there were MMA competitions as early as the 1970s.

Yes the UFC have marketed MMA but not as a great many of us like. It is my wish that the critics of MMA look at other promotions and things like inter club comps before criticising us.