I agree with you that it makes sense. MMA has become a style in and of itself. Form follows function. In the early days, it was true that practitioners of various styles would then adapt their styles to work within the format. But that was 20 years ago now. Over time, I think the format began to lead the way, shaping the form of training from the ground (literally) up. That's not to say that one approach has completely replaced the others. You still get fighters who notably use a given style and adapt it to competition. But at least as often, you get trainers (and consequently new practitioners) looking to the format first and saying "what skills do I need to address the situations being presented here?" And that's all style ever was. It was someone's (or some group's) effort to organize their thoughts regarding how to address a given situation. Lots of other things spring up around that central idea, but it all begins with that question. "What am I going to do about that?" When early trainers began training up-and-coming fighters, they began teaching them what they needed to know to win in that format. They didn't teach them all the aspects of whatever styles they originally came from. So that new generation of fighters doesn't know the system his teachers drew from. When he, in turn, begins training people, he'll be passing along those skills that do what he needs to do in the ring. A couple of generations out, the up-and-comings aren't even going to know that their teacher's teacher had a black belt in one art or another. What they'll be learning will, at that point, be a style in itself.
I believe what you just said is true Ap, the only thing Im curious about is this, what will the legacy factor look like in the new generation of martial artists now that MMA has become popular? And what is your thinking about this uniform deal in the UFC, please detail to me thank you.
I wasn't aware of a uniform in UFC. Seems odd. There's a thread about it here, right? Think I saw that flash by as I was scrolling. I'm afraid I don't really know what "legacy factor" means. Speaking personally, my background (not MMA, to be clear) has been pretty eclectic. So I tend to think less in terms of style and more in terms of teachers. I was influenced by certain teachers. Sure, style plays a role in that. But my sense of MMA is that it will continue in the way it's been going for a while now. In the early UFCs, it was "karate vs. street brawling." Now it's about individual fighters, camps, and trainers. That's what lineage will look like. Who did you train with? Where? Where did you compete? Etc.
no, i personally don't think those examples that you describe should be considered martial arts. it's pure marketing. the term itself, martial arts, is meaningless to me. i don't have a problem with people training in whatever they want, personally. i've even trained in aikido. but i never thought it would teach me how to fight.
I disagree Ap. I believe that you will get schools like that. However I think that you will always get the majority practising seperate martial arts and mixing them.
What!!! lols, hey come on Gi,you have to admit youve seen some impressive stufff out there, I mean what about stick fighting from the phillipines right.
We got an ongoing thread about the new uniforms. Can carry the conversation there. Again, doing a lineage line with MMA is going to be very mixed and varied. You can look at camps (like Alpha Male) and note who their trainers are, then look at each individual fighters and see who they were trained by. So that'll be a "lineage line" within a "lineage line". A few months ago the Fighters Only Magazine did a true Champion timeline for the UFC. Looking into who held Championships in other places, come into UFC, see who fought who (and became the unofficial champ as it were) etc etc. For example. Hendo (Pride FC Champ) vs Rampage (UFC Champ). Rampage wins = Pride FC/UFC Champ. Rampage (c) vs Griffin Griffin wins = etc etc Its an interesting read, if I can find it again, I'll see if I can scan it or something
I don't know about "always" Chadderz. We'll see. But the MMA schools I know of in the area might offer separate classes for BJJ and muay thai, for instance. But the people attending them aren't going there to master one or another of those styles. They're going there to learn the tools necessary to put together a successful approach for the MMA format. So, even if you can identify the component parts, people are training those parts with an eye on integrating them together into one coherent method. The muay thai that people learn in the MMA gyms I've seen looks very different from the muay thai you see performed by the likes of Buakaw, which looks like very classical muay thai to me. You don't see a lot of the 80-20 weight split in the stance, because it hampers the ability to sprawl and spells imminent danger in MMA. So their approach to that style is already being filtered through a specific set of requirements. Aside from that, there's the marketing. The MMA gyms in this area don't say "X Muay Thai & BJJ Gym." They say "X MMA." When you go in there, you know you aren't likely to learn the ram muay, train in the historical antecedents of muay thai (e.g., double sabre or muay boran). You're getting a specific interpretation of muay thai. And coupling it with a specific interpretation of whatever grappling art we're talking about. At some point, I feel like the source material gets changed enough that the new product takes on an identity of its own. And I don't think there's much denying that MMA has taken on an identity of its own.
i have seen some impressive stuff. and phillipino arts is part of that. any "art" where pressure is applied. i love boxing, wrestling, bjj, judo, eskrima, muay thai. remove the pressure, and one is not learning how to fight. i can appreciate a shaolin demo seeing dudes (and kids) flying around. but i can appreciate it from a non-fighting perspective. kind of like how one can appreciate professional wrestling, even realizing it's completely fake. seriously, those guys are amazing to do that stuff. was laughing with my bjj coach today. we were doing a sweep where one is on the bottom and getting his/her guard passed, then basically, one traps an arm and does a backroll, sweeping the passer. we laughed because we had both done aikido at one time, and i said to him "finally, after all those years, aikido is helping me". lol
I suppose that's potentially true. Which came first, combat SAMBO, or the ruleset SAMBO? Same with shooto wrestling I'd imagine. The rule set came then the style was developed. Perhaps you guys are right. I want to point out I'm not against the idea of gyms training like that, I just think it's important to learn pure arts because everything is useful. That's the difference between JKD mindset as MMA perhaps?
I thoroughly agree with this. Most of my training is in an MMA class. We don't learn muay thai or boxing, we learn striking for MMA. We tend to be aware of the lineage of the techniques (ie. which strikes come from which art) but we are not training in muay thai, boxing, or any of the other arts that we draw techniques from. In much the same way training JKD isn't training in boxing, though you might learn boxing techniques, and training in bartitsu is not training jujitsu. If you were to walk into any of the local MMA gyms you would find that they are teaching the same basic techniques in the same fashion. Clearly there is a core of techniques that are accepted "MMA" techniques. If MMA doesn't meet the definition of a style then I find it really difficult to work out what it could possible be. If I am not learning a style or an art, what am I learning?
I'd agree that it's a difference between Inosanto-lineage JKD and MMA. (That's mine as well, by the way.) But in MMA, you have an objective format to inform the training methodology. In JKD, there's more room for interpretation since JKD isn't represented by a defining ruleset. Other approaches to JKD might feel different, but I feel like the Inosanto camp focuses more than an MMA gym would on exploring the contributing styles. It certainly sparked my interest in FMA, muay thai, boxing, and other things.
I am training all these arts separately.i must be one of the few. I think it's better because BJJ is so detailed on it's own. Crazy detailed.
It seems these days that there is a generic "MMA" class/session for most and that is a "eirks for the cage" training environment. However I can think of few MMA fighters that dont also drill the component arts in isolation. That said when separating that should be more about "fine tuning" because certain aspects of the individual disciplines can be counter intuitive to MMA usage
And thats my point exactly, theres not a specific style called MMA, theres to many different mixes out there, MMA is a genre of martial art, I was hung up about that here for awhile but I have it sorted out. They dont often name there MMA systems, instead they just call it MMA, I think thats confuseing but whatever. I promise you all though, there will never be a standard technique system called american MMA and done by all the MMA guys in america, it will never be like that.
0 Perhaps. It will likely be called something else. It will allow the eye jab and a nut shot. Other than that it will be mma in disguise. It will likely be as standard as karate is today.
