Can we call MMA a style?

[Steve]

o... k.
Taichi is ma as far as I know, Martial D thinks otherwise.
Then for iado down to catch wrestling I don't know enough about them.
For example I know Kendo was constructed as a sport but having never trained it I don't know if the jitsu elements are taught or not.
Sambo and catch wrestling I know nothing about.

Then from ninjutsu to Kali are martial arts except for fencing which is a sport based on martial art.

Again, no disrespect to sports just different things.

No disrespect taken. I'm really just trying to figure out how much thought you've given this subject. Weren't you the guy who had a whole thread on how any martial arts style will work if it's trained correctly? I think so, but may be mistaken. so, I'm just trying to figure out for myself whether you're just spitballing here, or if this is something that somehow relates to your definition of "martial art."

And it sounds like you just may not be familiar enough with the diversity of styles that exist, and so it's a little easier to take a binary stance. My opinion is that it's very mushy, where you have sports that evolve into martial arts and martial arts that evolve into sports, and every possible permutation in between.

 

[DaveB]

No disrespect taken. I'm really just trying to figure out how much thought you've given this subject. Weren't you the guy who had a whole thread on how any martial arts style will work if it's trained correctly? I think so, but may be mistaken. so, I'm just trying to figure out for myself whether you're just spitballing here, or if this is something that somehow relates to your definition of "martial art."

And it sounds like you just may not be familiar enough with the diversity of styles that exist, and so it's a little easier to take a binary stance. My opinion is that it's very mushy, where you have sports that evolve into martial arts and martial arts that evolve into sports, and every possible permutation in between.

I am that guy, not sure how that relates?

I don't think my familiarity or lack thereof really makes a difference. As I said, one need not worry about what a martial art is to know what a sport is. It comes down to the purpose of the activity. The reason that activity exists.
Sports are games to entertain by the drama of waiting to see who will win.
Martial arts are a means of dealing with violence in the world by aiming usually to be better at violence than the other guy.

I know that there is crossover, hence my comments on Kendo and judo. One can change into the other, but all you need ask is what is there more of, or is there anything left of the original purpose?

I class an art as martial art If there is still teaching beyond the sport elements. I know martial judo still exists, but that it is rare.

This is where we get into the art vs school question. If your classifying the whole art (which is the basis on which I've been talking) then any instances of the original martial purpose are enough to still call it a martial art.

But the individual school may be a sport school, defined by the scope and purpose of the teaching being focused on competitions alone.
You can also have a martial art school with a sport focus where martial elements are taught but the bulk of time is devoted to training for competitions.

Ultimately I am saying that a sport is something that can exist within a martial art. Martial art will always be the bigger subject because it is meant to deal with more than the narrow focus of competition. So long as there is still more to you than sport you are ma. In my book at least.

 

[drop bear]

I am that guy, not sure how that relates?

I don't think my familiarity or lack thereof really makes a difference. As I said, one need not worry about what a martial art is to know what a sport is. It comes down to the purpose of the activity. The reason that activity exists.
Sports are games to entertain by the drama of waiting to see who will win.
Martial arts are a means of dealing with violence in the world by aiming usually to be better at violence than the other guy.

I know that there is crossover, hence my comments on Kendo and judo. One can change into the other, but all you need ask is what is there more of, or is there anything left of the original purpose?

I class an art as martial art If there is still teaching beyond the sport elements. I know martial judo still exists, but that it is rare.

This is where we get into the art vs school question. If your classifying the whole art (which is the basis on which I've been talking) then any instances of the original martial purpose are enough to still call it a martial art.

But the individual school may be a sport school, defined by the scope and purpose of the teaching being focused on competitions alone.
You can also have a martial art school with a sport focus where martial elements are taught but the bulk of time is devoted to training for competitions.

Ultimately I am saying that a sport is something that can exist within a martial art. Martial art will always be the bigger subject because it is meant to deal with more than the narrow focus of competition. So long as there is still more to you than sport you are ma. In my book at least.

Your issue is that you think a sport is not inherently a means of training for self defence.

You can use sport within its own boundaries to defend yourself from an attacker. So if someone just did boxing and got attacked on the street. He could use legal boxing to defend himself. To the point that he could even put on 12ounce gloves and use legal boxing to defend himself.

And this is not accounting for the idea that all self defence can involve elements outside the scope of any training.

 

[DaveB]

Your issue is that you think a sport is not inherently a means of training for self defence.

You can use sport within its own boundaries to defend yourself from an attacker. So if someone just did boxing and got attacked on the street. He could use legal boxing to defend himself. To the point that he could even put on 12ounce gloves and use legal boxing to defend himself.

And this is not accounting for the idea that all self defence can involve elements outside the scope of any training.

lol If you read my posts you'd know that my "issue", whatever it is, is definitely not that.

I don't disagree except to say that the sport of boxing is a good training exercise for strikers of any TMA. Training is it's own activity and not limited by style, meaning there's nothing stopping a ninjutsu guy training like a pro Thai fighter in addition to the style specific skills.

My differentiation is much more about what sport is and is not as opposed to what makes an ma.

Training is niether sport nor martial art it is training.

I could go boxing because I want to run a marathon, but while in the gym I am not competing in the sport of marathon running nor the sport of boxing, I am training.

As I said before it's the purpose of the activity that informs it's classification.
Winning a competition = sport
Defenestrating Ninja assailants (not the everyday ninja you see at the bus stop) = martial arts.

 

[DaveB]

"You aren't doing mma unless you are in an MMA competition"<-----. Umm what? Good luck finding anyone to agree with that. Have you ever stepped foot inside an MMA gym? I encourage you do so and let them know 90% of them aren't actually doing mma, and report the results here.

Also, what people do and the purpose for doing it(which again, varies from person to person despite your insistence to the contrary) are kinda connected.

But again, if it is the 'purpose for doing it' that distinguishes whether it's a martial art or a sport, and doing it for competition means it's not actually martial art, that would mean people that do say, karate, tkd, jui jitsu, primarily to compete aren't actually doing a martial art either. (Which is of course, silly)

Standing on a Tennis court hitting balls fired from s ball launcher. Are you playing Tennis?

Kicking a football in a sine wave around cones, are you playing football?

So why would you be doing mma when your doing drills in a class?

Yes you can say that sparring is the ma equivalent of playing s sport for fun rather than competition, like kids plsying football in the playground, and that is true. But due to its nature most class sparring I'd say most sessions are meant to be instructive ie more training than playing.... not that it matters.

The point is simply that training is it's own activity.

As to the purpose I mentioned for defining ma. I did specify that it is not the purpose of the people in the dojo.

That means it must but the purpose behind the creation of the martial art: the reason the art exists.

That is what makes it martial art: existing to preserve people against violence.

Now sport training and even participation in sports are a great way to train a martial art. Sport, through high participation and funding, gets to very efficient training methods and pressure tests technique in a safe environment and in much higher volumes than ma can. But martial art will always include elements unsafe for sport. The sport training will inform the risks and needs to be able to employ said unsafe methods so it's still of high value, but it's not the only valuable training method.

 

[drop bear]

lol If you read my posts you'd know that my "issue", whatever it is, is definitely not that.

Let's put this simply. Doing the sport is training the self defence.

If you are training for sport you are training for self defence.

 

[DaveB]

Let's put this simply. Doing the sport is training the self defence.

If you are training for sport you are training for self defence.

Not necessarily.

 

[Hyoho]

So why are people that practice the Japanese arts even using the word 'style'? Japanese never use such a word. It's a school (ryu).

 

[DaveB]

So why are people that practice the Japanese arts even using the word 'style'? Japanese never use such a word. It's a school (ryu).

Because were not pedants.

Because exclusive technologies are a barrier to communication outside of the circle of their use.

Because then you'd get into arguments about what "actually" constitutes a ryu.

 

[Martial D]

Standing on a Tennis court hitting balls fired from s ball launcher. Are you playing Tennis?

Kicking a football in a sine wave around cones, are you playing football?

So why would you be doing mma when your doing drills in a class?

Yes you can say that sparring is the ma equivalent of playing s sport for fun rather than competition, like kids plsying football in the playground, and that is true. But due to its nature most class sparring I'd say most sessions are meant to be instructive ie more training than playing.... not that it matters.

The point is simply that training is it's own activity.

As to the purpose I mentioned for defining ma. I did specify that it is not the purpose of the people in the dojo.

That means it must but the purpose behind the creation of the martial art: the reason the art exists.

That is what makes it martial art: existing to preserve people against violence.

Now sport training and even participation in sports are a great way to train a martial art. Sport, through high participation and funding, gets to very efficient training methods and pressure tests technique in a safe environment and in much higher volumes than ma can. But martial art will always include elements unsafe for sport. The sport training will inform the risks and needs to be able to employ said unsafe methods so it's still of high value, but it's not the only valuable training method.

All that would be valid only if you began with the assumption that mma was only a sport to begin with. Since I don't share that assumption, and you haven't addressed any of my counterpoints, this whole post is pointless.

Again you have defined what a martial art is in such a way that it could include include mma and exclude something like Tai chi (exists to preserve people against violence) unless you have already decided the only possible reason anyone could do mma is to compete..which is patently not the case, however much you insist it must be.

 

[Martial D]

To put it another way;

Person A (Bob) wants to learn how to fight. Bob checks around, and finds a karate dojo.

Bob joins, and over time is taught to punch, kick, block. Bob does drills and maybe some sparring, Bob learns how to control his body, after a time, Bob knows karate.

Person b (Steve) wants to learn how to fight. Steve checks around, and finds an MMA gym.

Steve joins, and over time is taught to punch, kick, block(and grapple) Steve does drills and a lot of sparring.steve learns how to control his body. After a time, Steve knows MMA.

Now Bob knows martial arts and Steve doesn't because (insert reason)

 

[drop bear]

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily if it is a sport like tennis. But is the case if it is a martial art like boxing.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Your issue is that you think a sport is not inherently a means of training for self defence.

You can use sport within its own boundaries to defend yourself from an attacker. So if someone just did boxing and got attacked on the street. He could use legal boxing to defend himself. To the point that he could even put on 12ounce gloves and use legal boxing to defend himself.

And this is not accounting for the idea that all self defence can involve elements outside the scope of any training.

Good point, DB. It's entirely possible for someone to train for and participate in a sport (MMA, boxing, Judo), training only the moves for that sport, within the rules of that sport, for the purpose of self-defense. And someone teaching/coaching that sport could easily make a few adjustments and teach the sport (while training for the sport, under the rules of the sport) for self-defense.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So why are people that practice the Japanese arts even using the word 'style'? Japanese never use such a word. It's a school (ryu).

The difference between literal translation and meaningful translation. While "school" technically has the same meaning, it's rarely used that way ("school of thought" is the only example I can think of off the top of my head). When we refer to different approaches to dancing, we don't refer to them as "schools", but as "styles". And that distinction seems more appropriate in English (to me, anyway).

 

[DaveB]

To put it another way;

Person A (Bob) wants to learn how to fight. Bob checks around, and finds a karate dojo.

Bob joins, and over time is taught to punch, kick, block. Bob does drills and maybe some sparring, Bob learns how to control his body, after a time, Bob knows karate.

Person b (Steve) wants to learn how to fight. Steve checks around, and finds an MMA gym.

Steve joins, and over time is taught to punch, kick, block(and grapple) Steve does drills and a lot of sparring.steve learns how to control his body. After a time, Steve knows MMA.

Now Bob knows martial arts and Steve doesn't because (insert reason)

Again my reasoning is not based on what the individuals reasons for practicing are.

My definition is based on the reason the activity was created.

I could be wrong, but what I know of mma is that it is a combat sport format that invited all comers and over time as people played rock paper scissors with their arts they realised they needed to know something from each range specialism, hence mixed martial arts.

That to me is a sport.

Tai chi as I read it was created to be a fighting method and was taught to the imperial guard of one of China's emperor's.

That to me is a martial art.

Can one become the other? Sure, but it takes a while and involves the expansion or extinction of certain elements.

I think I was pretty clear before so I don't get why you keep bringing up people's reasons for training? I'm not being funny but I feel like something is getting lost in translation.

As to counter points I missed, please point them out and I'll give it a go.

 

[DaveB]

Not necessarily if it is a sport like tennis. But is the case if it is a martial art like boxing.

Not really. The focus of boxing is too narrow. MMA training makes a better case but it's still limited because of its focus and the more focussed the individual is on sport the further he gets from SD.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

My definition is based on the reason the activity was created.

Okay, but that means we have to track an activity back to some original purpose. What if the purpose changes? If someone opens a school teaching self-defense using what has been learned from MMA competition (so the "MMA style"), then the purpose of the activity within that school is self-defense. But it's MMA - the exact same things they were practicing at the gym where she trained, using all the same methods, approaches, etc. The only difference is that their purpose is self-defense (whether individuals choose to compete or not).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not really. The focus of boxing is too narrow. MMA training makes a better case but it's still limited because of its focus and the more focussed the individual is on sport the further he gets from SD.

Too narrow for what?

 

[Hyoho]

Because were not pedants.

Because exclusive technologies are a barrier to communication outside of the circle of their use.

Because then you'd get into arguments about what "actually" constitutes a ryu.

Well if you are not pedantic maybe it's best the word ART was dropped. Maybe its best not practiced at all. Because generally a person who does MA is excessively concerned with minor details and rules, displaying academic learning. To try and hand down a tradition. The Japanese concept and psyche is based on it. That's what makes them tick giving it application to other things.

Those that are in a recognised ryu have no problem distiguishing who is and isnt.

 

[Martial D]

Again my reasoning is not based on what the individuals reasons for practicing are.

My definition is based on the reason the activity was created.

I could be wrong, but what I know of mma is that it is a combat sport format that invited all comers and over time as people played rock paper scissors with their arts they realised they needed to know something from each range specialism, hence mixed martial arts.

That to me is a sport.

Tai chi as I read it was created to be a fighting method and was taught to the imperial guard of one of China's emperor's.

That to me is a martial art.

Can one become the other? Sure, but it takes a while and involves the expansion or extinction of certain elements.

I think I was pretty clear before so I don't get why you keep bringing up people's reasons for training? I'm not being funny but I feel like something is getting lost in translation.

As to counter points I missed, please point them out and I'll give it a go.

MMA was created for fighting, same as any other martial art.It started off as TMA people competing against each other, and evolved in the direction of what worked.

Even so, your distinction that to be a martial art something had to have been designated as such by some person from antiquity seems a little off and more than a little arbitrary. MMA contains all of the same elements as any other style, is trained basically the same as any other style, and practiced for the same wide variety of reasons as any other style. A martial art is simply a style of hand to hand combat. What you use it for after the fact is neither here nor there.

By the way, to my understanding (open to correction) taichi started out as a set of relaxation exercises that later evolved into a fighting style, which would make it, according to your arbitrary classification, not a martial art.