MMA IS A STYLE

I will certainly agree with that.

 

I simply said there we're loads =S eat s*it

 

how so and clearly you are not or you would debate why with me so how do you know ?? I think you have misinterpreted me saying that what is sold as eastern philosophy under many martial arts isn't really its a flimsy imitation straight out of a kung-fu films for saying all eastern philosophy is crap or there is no eastern philosophy, because you are stupid.

 

mate pankration was the sport of boxing and wrestling as one so yes basically an early interpretation of MMA, it was played at the Olympic games in Greece a thousand years ago, the belt system is like a hundred years old and came from the other side of the world what that guy is doing is nonsense to use the name pankration is bad enough but I can only imagine what the actual training is as it is a fighting art that was never passed down to my knowledge and certainly had no belt structure.

 

So can 'MMA' be defined at all?

 

yeah it was an over reaction my bad

 

Theres nothing in TKD sparring thats not allowed in MMA. The same goes for grappling, san da, kyokushin sparring, freestyle wrestling, greco roman wrestling, judo, boxing, hapkido sparring, thai boxing, kickboxing or any other combat sport that I've ever heard of. You could do any of those and use your style in MMA competition, without ever having trained in 'MMA'.

MMA is not a style, its a set of rules. Its the closest thing to real fighting while remaining reasonably safe.

The way people train for it has got more uniform over the years due to a higher level of professionalism and an understanding of what techniques are 'high percentage' but even so, consider Brock Lesnder and Anderson Silva...are they similar? Or Nick Diaz and Fedor? Would you say they have the same style?

MMA is not a style, it is a set of rules. The most important and influential set of rules to have ever been created in the world of martial arts.

 

Like others have said, it's hard to define MMA because it's hard to define TMA - most people think of tae kwon do, aikido, or certain styles of kung fu, karate or kempo, which may not be more than 100 years old. And then you look at the arts that tend to compose the bulk of MMA - you've got western boxing, western wrestling and jujutsu, all of which are very old, if not ancient.

You could argue that western boxing, kickboxing, muay thai and "jiu-jitsu" are modern, since BJJ is more judo-ish, and kickboxing and boxing are based on modern sports with rules and regulations. Regardless, MMA seems to be a mix of ancient and modern striking and grappling arts, the most popular coming from sports like boxing, wrestling and judo.

 

judo is allot newer than Boxing so not really and BJJ is even newer, Muay Thai is simply another fighting style that has existed for thousands of years but adopted to a way in which it can be practised safely in this respects its modern but the actual style of fighting and the techniques are not. basically you have proven my point the term traditional martial art is one that makes no sense

 

UFC champions who have held no grade in BJJ (off the top of my head, listed as they come to me)

Randy Coulture
Brock Lesner
Rich Franklin(I think)
Pat Militich
Matt Hughes
Sean Sherk
Rampage Jackson
Jens Pulver
Frankie Edgar (I think)
Chuck Liddell
Frank Shamrock
Tito Ortiz
Mark Coleman
Bas Rutten
Kevin Randleman
Tim Syliva
Andre Arlovsk
Shane Carwin (interim title holder)

 

Kazushi Sakuraba should be on that list no one else proved how good you can be at grappling without having done BJJ as much as he did.

 

OK, so then why isn't saying something like 'training UFC' incorrect as someone pointed out earlier?

As far as I am aware, there are also slight variations in rules between the major competitions, not to mention the lighter contact variations designed to get people in the ring.

 

Well yeah it doesn't make a lot of sense, the UFC is a competitive fighting league. Its like saying a footballer is 'training world cup'.

Not really aware of lighter contact variations? Do you mean more restricted rules? I did an amateur MMA fight and I wouldn't relly say its MMA, more like a grappling match with a few strikes thrown in.

As to rule variations in pro MMA, such as using elbows or not, its still MMA, small rule changes don't make a massive difference. Its still a competition format that allows striking on the feet and on the ground, that combines stand up and ground grappling, takedowns and submissions. Prior to MMA there was nothing that allowed this.

My training is mainly geared towards MMA at the moment, I want to fight before the end of the year. But I wouldn't say I train in the 'style' of MMA. I do thai boxing, boxing and grappling. Then spar MMA rules where I can use any of those, or techniques from kung fu, judo, san da, BJJ or any of the other things I've done in the past.

 

Word. Theres a lot of non-UFC guys who fit that description but he specifically mentioned the UFC so I stuck to UFC champs.

 

no sorry but that's totally wrong just because most MMA promotions have similar rules doesn't mean its an accurate description of someone training in the sport of MMA to call it UFC, when your training has no connection to that business at all. I could play basketball on the weekends but if someone said what days do you play NBA wouldn't that be stupid ? its the same thing. especially when you consider that the NBA is only one basketball league and in my case a totally foreign one just like UFC they both just happen to be the most popular league/promotion and are there for generic terms you would never here someone say what nights do you train Pride FC or what nights do you train Strikeforce

 

Sakuraba was in the UFC once or twice I know that's not wildly known but I saw Bas Rutten on the list and he wasn't in the UFC very much either so I just thought id put him forward as another example as he is probably the best one throughout all MMA.

 

I know it doesn't make a lot of sense. But it's sort of difficult to define 'MMA' when on one hand you say it's a set of rules, and then on the other hand it's not the competition. I'm not going after you here, I'm just trying to find a way to define MMA, which is sort of difficult because people who know of MA in general will have an idea of what it is, however the general population just think 'oh, that's that UFC thing'.

I think this difficulty comes through the lack of history which other MAs have. I won't call it traditional or whatnot but instead use history or even the word lineage. With other MAs I can say something it was first seen around X years ago and was mostly developed by Mr. Y who had a background in MA Z who then passed it onto their main students Mr. and Mrs. Q. Even with older MAs where you can't identify individuals you can at least say it's been around since a certain period of time and seen it develop since. This is what MMA is lacking. I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing I'm just saying it's hard to define.

Yes something like this. I'm not to familiar with it but the rules are more restrictive. Possibly no or only limited power strikes to the head both standing and on the ground.

 

Just to make it clear, I offered that statement as a discussion point, not because I actually believe it. I think it's just as an absurd statement as you believe but if MMA is defined just as a set of rules it just doesn't seem like an adequate or descriptive description. But then I can't think of anything better, but that's what I am trying to do.

 

that just seems so silly to me how can something have a history if its not allowed to live through it first, the history of MMA is being made now we should be thankful we are alive at time when Martial arts are experiencing the impact of something so dramatic and not concern ourself's with trying to define it and give it a history before its made