For somebody to start out in MMA as the first form of martial arts that they learn some people think its a good idea as it makes you well rounded. Other people say that with MMA you might be spreading yourself too thin and you might become a jack of all trades master of none. As for me, this is what I believe MMA is best for. I think its best if you already have good experience in different styles, preferably a striking based style and a grappling based style, and MMA at that point can help you combine them.
What I believe MMA is best for
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
Koshiki
Brown Belt
I may be naive here, but is it really standard for people to train in "MMA" as a style rather than a sport now? I know some places do teach straight up MMA as a style, but the only gyms I have seen personally teach a variety of martial arts, basically BJJ and a stand-up striking art or two. One school (which sadly went under last year) was BJJ and Muy Thai, the other one is BJJ, boxing, and kickboxing.
Sooo, I may be mistaken, but I think most "MMA" gyms are actually teaching a couple different arts, and then allowing people to compete utilizing all of them under an MMA rule-set, which is.... exactly what you seem to think people should do, as I understand it.
I mean, isn't training in BJJ, and Kickboxing, and then fighting under MMA rules of some sort, basically getting, "good experience in different styles, preferably a striking based style and a grappling based style, and MMA at that point can help you combine them."
Sooo, I may be mistaken, but I think most "MMA" gyms are actually teaching a couple different arts, and then allowing people to compete utilizing all of them under an MMA rule-set, which is.... exactly what you seem to think people should do, as I understand it.
I mean, isn't training in BJJ, and Kickboxing, and then fighting under MMA rules of some sort, basically getting, "good experience in different styles, preferably a striking based style and a grappling based style, and MMA at that point can help you combine them."
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
You can approach it either way.
If you ask me, I would say that the martial arts and all its diverse styles serve the purpose of being geared to as many people as possible. That's part of the beauty of the martial arts.
Koshiki
Brown Belt
Right, I get that you can. My understanding though, (again, speaking locally) is that the majority of MMA gyms still teach a grappling art and a striking art separately, rather than just teaching MMA as it's own martial art with no other background. I could be pretty wrong on that count.
I note that if you google "MMA Gym" the first two pages are gyms that all teach a mixture of BJJ, Kickboxing, Judo, Wrestling, whatever the heck Gaidojutsu is, which to me still sounds like teaching a literal "mixture of martial arts," rather than some single style of martial arts known as MMA...
Kickboxer101
Master Black Belt
Maybe that's what some people want look at Rory McDonald he started with just mma and he's one of the best In the world. Not everyone wants to be the best fighter when they start some may be doing it to simply work out, or socialise or try something new
Here it's mostly going to depend on what your local club/gym can provide. Many clubs/gyms here work out of schools, sports centres, community/church halls etc so it's easier to offer classes that cover everything, with perhaps a separate sparring class.
The few big places we have here can offer separate stand up and ground work classes with a class where a coach can put it all together for you, they can usually offer sparring and fitness classes too. Most competitors try to train at places like this though there's no reason non competitors can't.
The few big places we have here can offer separate stand up and ground work classes with a class where a coach can put it all together for you, they can usually offer sparring and fitness classes too. Most competitors try to train at places like this though there's no reason non competitors can't.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Yeah look in that you are probably right
Mma is a case of trying to be a master of all trades. To do that you have expertise in the different components that make up mma. And on that you probably also need to train in non martial art styles like sports psychology and fitness.
You can't really do that for under one banner all that well.
It will depend a bit on what you consider your dominant style to be.
It is not grappling and striking rather than mma. It is grappling striking and mma.
stonewall1350
Blue Belt
Personally? I know one gym that is an "MMA gym." They do REALLY well because they brought in guys to teach BJJ. They also brought in a kick boxer and a wrestling coach. The main guy was a competitive fighter before he started the gym.
The way the gym ran was that they had classes in kickboxing and BJJ (competitive), and the MMA class. The wrestling coach assisted with MMA.
So is it possible to teach MMA as an art? Sure. You just have to have guys who know how to handle the experience of a grappler or stand up fighter. You can't just "know one art" to win at MMA, but you also can't undertrain your options either.
Some guys grapple better than they strike. Some guys strike better than they grapple.
Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.
The way the gym ran was that they had classes in kickboxing and BJJ (competitive), and the MMA class. The wrestling coach assisted with MMA.
So is it possible to teach MMA as an art? Sure. You just have to have guys who know how to handle the experience of a grappler or stand up fighter. You can't just "know one art" to win at MMA, but you also can't undertrain your options either.
Some guys grapple better than they strike. Some guys strike better than they grapple.
Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.
Agreed. Some folks come from a background in one or more distinct arts/styles. Others want to get into MMA competition and go train with someone who teaches a set of techniques selected from different sources specifically for MMA competition. The former are probably more well-rounded (beyond MMA competition), and the latter probably become competent MMA competitors faster (since they focused on only that).
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Sort of. There are different ways to achieve a result in mma than in some of the component arts.
And some of the rules of effectiveness change.
In other words, you have a gym that teaches sport oriented BJJ, kickboxing and wrestling, and has a class that combines them. This is still teaching three different arts, just adapted for the ring.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
4 different arts.
I thik the issue is this cross training as a base for a martial art is kind of a new thing.
But personally i think if you do a hybrid you really should approach it in that manner.
Imagine krav where everyone could also strike and wrestle.
For most folks, yes. But if someone picked up the grappling at a school that did no striking (some Aikido schools, for instance), and the striking at a school that did no grappling (some Shotokan schools, perhaps), there can be a gap between the two. They aren't integrated and combined. There's one set of answers for working at a distance and another separate set of answers for working in really close. Working with folks in a MMA gym would be one way to work on that gap.
Just my 2 cents
Unfortunately some martial art teachers only teach the striking component of the system and not the grappling component of the system and as a result the common assumption is that a specific martial art doesn't have grappling. Some think that BJJ, MMA, or some other grappling component needs to be included because the system lacks one. My theory is that all striking systems have a grappling component that was originally trained along with the striking, and that the grappling techniques that were developed allowed the practitioner to get the most out of their striking techniques used in their striking system. There's no way possible that humans can war against each other in ancient times without someone being taken to the ground. Even sword fighting had grappling techniques.
My Ignorant Statement: My theory is that early bare knuckle fighting included grappling techniques as well.
I think MMA just does what Modern Martial arts should have been doing, Teaching and using both the striking and grappling components of the system.
It could be that the creation of boxing as a sport is why some of the other martial arts ignored the grappling component. For a long time Boxing was big money and fame for fighting and all they do in boxing is punch. Maybe martial arts wanted to be rich and famous too so they focused on just the strikes similar to what boxing does. Now that MMA is a big money maker, people are going back to the grappling components within their system. In hopes to compete in a sport that is similar to MMA and get rich.
This is Korea's traditional grappling system SSireum
This is India's traditional grappling system Kushti.
Unfortunately some martial art teachers only teach the striking component of the system and not the grappling component of the system and as a result the common assumption is that a specific martial art doesn't have grappling. Some think that BJJ, MMA, or some other grappling component needs to be included because the system lacks one. My theory is that all striking systems have a grappling component that was originally trained along with the striking, and that the grappling techniques that were developed allowed the practitioner to get the most out of their striking techniques used in their striking system. There's no way possible that humans can war against each other in ancient times without someone being taken to the ground. Even sword fighting had grappling techniques.
My Ignorant Statement: My theory is that early bare knuckle fighting included grappling techniques as well.
I think MMA just does what Modern Martial arts should have been doing, Teaching and using both the striking and grappling components of the system.
It could be that the creation of boxing as a sport is why some of the other martial arts ignored the grappling component. For a long time Boxing was big money and fame for fighting and all they do in boxing is punch. Maybe martial arts wanted to be rich and famous too so they focused on just the strikes similar to what boxing does. Now that MMA is a big money maker, people are going back to the grappling components within their system. In hopes to compete in a sport that is similar to MMA and get rich.
This is Korea's traditional grappling system SSireum
This is India's traditional grappling system Kushti.
That is likely true of most arts/systems. However, there likely were some teachers who only taught one area (perhaps because that's what they were better at than the people around them, or that's what those people needed the most). Some of those would have become the arts we know today. So, I think there's every possibility some styles never had the other side in them, though most likely were more complete.
So, not knowing the history of various arts, I will generally disagree with this (if someone can point me to the actual history, I will gladly agree I am wrong). I believe that if someone is smart/talented/good enough to create their own system, they will know what their (personal) style is lacking. In that situation, they will teach others primarily what they are good at, but purposefully not ignore what they are bad at. From what I can tell, what they are bad at is generally grappling, so what is generally taught is striking and throwing, but not necessarily ground grappling. However, I would assume that an instructor who is bad at ground grappling would encourage others to learn from someone who is good at ground grappling.
Based on my own experience, Kempo, they encouraged me to pursue ground grappling. With nanzan budokan kenpo (a unique style taught by Dayn Derose and his brother Daryn Derose) they had learned ground grappling through judo and sambo, and were able to adequately teach it along with their striking and throwing. These are not people who were perfect, but accepted their faults and learned from them, and I would hope most martial arts instructors in various arts that I have not learned have done the same.
I'll give you an example of my point. If you look at Ueshiba's Aikido, in most branches you see few strikes (if any) now. That's because apparently Ueshiba didn't teach many. His early students already knew basic striking, so he didn't include those in what he taught. If I were to codify his art based upon what he taught (as many have done), then his Aikido system doesn't include strikes. If we based it on how the early versions of his Aikido were performed, it included lots of strikes.
My point wasn't that an instructor would leave students lacking something, but that some instructors would be specialists - teaching a specific area of fighting to students with a general background. This appears to be what Ueshiba's focus was, at least with his early students (most of his later students were actually mostly taught by his earlier students, according to Stan Pranin's research). This approach would be expected to lead to some arts/styles (certainly not all) not being complete, simply because they weren't meant to be. A clear example of this would be the sword arts, at least some of which appear to never have included anything except the sword waza.
