MardiGras Bandit said:I tried to add this to my post but the time limit expired.
MMA is a combination of styles proven to work in real fights. Most prevalent are BJJ, Muay Thai, wrestling and boxing, but there are others as well. Some criticize MMA (as a style) for being the product of rule bound fights. It is true that some aspects of fighting are ignored, but the fact is a well rounded fighter will defeat someone relying on a "death touch" to win a fight. This is what MMA (as its own style) is all about.
Rule bound fights are also the only way to consistently analyze fights and therefore be able to draw factual conclusions about what works and what does not. This can't be done with stories about street fights that happend to a friend of a friend. MMA tournaments have provided a means to this end, and have led to big advances in fighiting styles.
Whilst I think the underlying principal of MMA is a great idea, and one worthy of the future, I don't think that this statement is 100% accurate. Rule bound fights give you the opportunity to analyse rule bound fights, and act as a test bed to a certain degree.
However, that aside, I like the underlying principle of MMA, even though I don't study it. There is validity in most arts to a greater or lesser extent, but I also think that most have them changed in some way, either being affected by politics in China, or turned into point scoring sports as in certain karate styles.
I think that there is still a great deal of ignorance of other styles in most arts, regardless of background, and I'm sure that the more TMA often look down on MMA, I don't subscribe to that, it does nark me a little bit when some MMA guys think that the only way to do MA, or test moves is by having 2 200lb professional athletes smacking lumps out of each other, and that everyone else is a pansy for not doing it. Both views are equally misguided. IMHO.