Traditional vs MMA

Now that is a thread worth having!

Though, of course, I'd need to see both fighters naked, in my room, before I could decide who to cheer for .

 

Sure we will.

It's, er, Steven, right?

 

MMA is a style of fighting, its not a mix and match of styles. Doing a kungfu that "covers all ranges" doesnt mean you are doing MMA. Doing TKD, boxing and BJJ doesnt mean you are doing MMA. MMA is taught in MMA gyms, funnily enough...

 

I can see it now:

in 50-100 years time we will have TMMA vs MMMA threads all over the place.

"whats your lineage of TMMA? mine is a direct descendant of Shamrock do, my teacher trained with his star pupil"

and "those TMMA techniques are never going to work in the dodecahedron, you have to train in a MMMA gym if you want to train real techniques"

 

um, no. MMA is a ruleset.

 

Thank you, MaverickZ.

It's a ruleset, as Mav said, and it's also a training methodology. It's NOT a style. Certainly a more expansive definition of "Mixed Martial Arts" can include any style performing under that ruleset.

Loot at the folloowing guys:
Sami Berik is a TCC and WC stylist
Jason DeLucia claims Combat Aikido now
and even BSD's Asia is a CMA stylist (Baji, right?).

While many "MMAers" train in specific styles, they don't have claim to the training methods and rulesets. That's like calling San Da or San Shou a style... no, it's a specific ruleset with a specific method of training.

 

I don't know who'd I'd cheer for, but I know who'd win: mankind!

 

Uh yes... it does... For example.. doing BJJ, Muay thai and some judo, mixing them together to where it best fits you, then applying it in an active sporting manner.. makes it MMA.

Me doing kung fu that covers all ranges makes it a systemized form of MMA. A traditional form of MMA.. covering, throws, grappling, striking.. even weapons...

Doesn't that make mine a bit more complete than your style of MMA? I heard once your average MMA fighter is a well rounded stand up striker and grappler.. but is it really MMA if I dropped in a Pekiti Tersia Kali, Lameco Escrima or Rapid Arnis (just randomly picked) knife fighter into the octagon and said go? Damn.. suddenly he's not so very rounded in combat anymore...

Cleanup on Aisle 4...

 

So a TKD fighter fighting under Muay Thai rules is now doing Muay Thai?

 

Weapons have nothing to do with "well rounded fighters" only girls use weapons in fights .

 

No it isnt. Back in the 90s it was, but nowerdays, MMA is a stand alone style. Its a mix of Boxing, Muay Thai, Greco Roman, freestyle Wrestling and BJJ.

Just because you are training all ranges, doesnt mean you are doing MMA.

 

I thought it had already been established (most recently in ap Oweyn's thread on the topic) that MMA is traditional training. Meh - gives me a chance to splurge something I was debating elsewhere.

Splurge:

MMA has brought genuine traditional martial arts back into focus. This is how people USED to train before a significant number of MA got diluted by a combination of commercialism and kung fu cinema, among other factors. As to matters of age, MMA (if we take pankration as a predecessor) is roughly 2700 years old, as it can be dated to at least 536 BC (when the oldest yet dated statue honouring an Olympic pankratiast was erected) or possibly 648 BC (if you take Sextus Julius Africanus list of Olympic sports to be accurate, but as that was written after 217 AD, I'm suspicious), either of which would indicate it was probably in existence before those dates. Alternately, wrestling – a major component of MMA training - has a proven history dating to at least 1950 BC, with murals from Beni Hasan, Egypt demonstrating recognisable wrestling technique. Even older are the limestone plaques and bronze jars depicting wrestlers from Nintu Temple VI in what used to be Sumeria (modern-day Iraq), dating from 3000 BC.

In other words, MMA is actually a very traditional manner of training – “train like you fight, fight like you train”. To bring up a quote from Josephus, 'The Jewish War', Book III, Chapter V (written in the 1st century AD), in reference to the Romans:

To take the classic example of ‘spritual monks’, often seen as emblematic of ‘traditional’ martial arts, the martial training which these monks (e.g., Shaolin) originally undertook would have been far from spiritual. On the contrary, it was probably based on the teachings of what David Ross calls the ‘undesirables’ who sheltered in their temples – take a look at his historical essay. I imagine that the kind of training these monks might have eventually developed would be remarkably similar to that which Josephus describes. As Ross puts it:

This is the kind of traditional training which has now been revived by the advent of MMA and the related principle of ‘aliveness’: practical, efficient, effective.

 

what about sambo?

 

MMA is just pro wrestling without the fakery. What's so revolutionary?

MMA

 

For what it's worth....

Todd Medina fought in UFC 5 claiming JKD Concepts and Filipino Martial arts. He now claims BJJ and trains with Carlson Gracie Jiu Jitsu. He last fought this year in KOTC.

 

Is that Giant Haystacks in the picture?

 

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? I mean normally you do speak words of common sense and reality.. but this is just plain talking out of the ass. There's been numerous MMA fighters of pro caliber that don't fit that sweeping generalization you just molded them into.

 

He has t3h r34l MMA!

(yes it is!)

Look - some pro wrestlers even mixed in martial arts that you wouldn't expect...

 

MMA is a ruleset, not a style. Certain styles lend themselves to the ruleset better than others, certain blends are more popular or prevalent, but it is not a "style". One school can be very different from another.

 

So who won? The geezer in the Kendo outfit or the one dressed up like Leonard Sachs?

(It was Leonard Sachs who used to compere 'The Good Old Days', wasn't it?)