Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Discussion' started by bodyshot, Nov 17, 2014.
Like the title says, whats mixed martial arts, lets have a go at it.
It's a unarmed combat sport with limited rules derived from Vale Tudo in the 1990s.
The origins of the term are not lost in the mists of time, so if you use it in the advertising of your non-competing Aikido/Wing Chun club then you are being somewhere between disingenuous and fraudulent.
Ineffective on the street because there's no rulz and refs man oh and lava don't forget the lava we all know MMA has no answer for it.
Keep it going, so far so good.
So who would you all say was the first to capitalize on the "concept" of mixed martial arts.
Earliest I know is the Ancient Greeks with Pankration. Although I'm not sure it counts as people are adamant mma isn't a style but a ruleset and while pankration matches were basically mma, my impression is it was taken as a style by itself with its own stances etc.
MMA is...becoming increasingly hard to get excited about due to all the injuries.
The "concept" of MMA is a fight, one-on-one, no weapons. People have been doing this for a while.
The term "mixed martial arts" is the name for a particular version of that game invented by Jeff Blatnick and/or John Mcarthy while they were working for the UFC.
It's what they do in UFC competitions, or the ruleset under which they do it.
If a club claims to be teaching MMA but isn't teaching to that ruleset, then it's like a squash club claiming to teach tennis - they might resemble each other and have transferable skills, but you're not learning what you think you're learning.
MMA-Mixed Mashed Asparagus
What if they go by Asian MMA rules?
Variant of the sport, like League and Union. Unless they're actually in Asia, though, where are they competing under such rules?
I think MMA parallels American Kickboxing in it's development. They both started off as rulesets aimed at allowing full contact competition between different styles, and they both evolved to become arts in their own right. Importantly, the techniques and training methods for both are guided by what works best for competition.
MMA is still in it's infancy, so there are slightly different rulesets in different organisations, but the rulesets are rapidly converging. Because MMA is still relatively new it continues to evolve at a rapid pace compared to other older arts. However, there is already a strong commonality of techniques and training methods across almost all MMA gyms.
So a Jiu Jitsu school that also teaches striking without going into the same ruleset (as UFC-MMA) not be considered as MMA?
Depends how close it is to what "the man on the street" would know as MMA - i.e. UFC/The Ultimate Fighter stuff.
If it's substantially different then it would make sense for them to advertise accordingly.
Others may disagree but I would say it would depend on what rule sets they were aiming at. If they competed in grappling competitions and striking competitions seperatly but never combined them then I don't think it is quite MMA. They would be teaching techniques that might be usefull for MMA but MMA is more than the sum of its parts, how you merge between styles and how you link your techniques together is at least as important as what those techniques are.
Without combing your techniques and competing/testing the individual style you end up with you have still not tested/competed using your MMA. You can test each skill in isolation (grappling only or striking only) but that is not the same as testing your skills as a whole.
I'm not a competitive MMA fighter so please feel free to question/argue with my statement. That's just how I see it from my training in distinctly seperate styles.
For the record I have never studied a specific method to combine my (modest) skills so would not call what I do MMA.
Those are all good responses, but the one I liked best was the one the young posted about Pancration. I believe that most of you are very close to the big big money. I dont personally agree that what you see in the UFC should be called MMA, I think it dosent do service t the fighters or the arts they employ.
Question, anyone seen that russle crow movie Gladiator lately, it isnt a new concept but its certainly a good movie, nobody wants to watch the b movie gladiator films cause they arnt as good, and no body wants to read history books but every body wants/ likes a good show.
MMA is a term for styles and systems that mix more than one art into one art thats it guys just like it says, mixed martial arts. Now it so happens they use that term in the ufc these days, but whats that matter considering that most of the time they dont even say what styles the fighter has mixed its a completely generic term thats been applied to a completely non generic activity, in fact mma is very specific. They try to sell the term MMA as there own concept, its not, the spirit of mixing martial arts so you can fight effectively is not something that came from the ufc or any other event it came from the realities of combat. There rule set does not create some generic form of martial art called MMA, thats total hog wash honestly, MMA consist of specific MA, rather Hybrid or traditional. The men you see in the ring do not make a system called MMA thats manure, the men you see in the ring only employ mixed arts and they do so very well because there advanced athletes way past beginner and way past tough.
Dont believe the hype, it isnt a new concept being revealed, its been known for a long long time that you dont have to master an art to be good at defending yourself, it only requires basic technique to knock or choke a man out, the public may be seeing this for the first time but its a very old concept.
In my opinion an MMA school is one that bases their training around tactics and techniques suitable for MMA competitions. A gym focusing on Combat Sambo, Sport Ju-Jitsu, or Sanda/Sanshou is not an MMA gym, even though there is a significant crossover in terms of techniques and training methodologies. If you are not training specifically for an MMA ruleset then you are not training in MMA.
When training at an MMA school, if the local competitions fight in a cage, then you might expect to learn striking against the cage, or cage specific takedowns. You wouldn't expect to learn eye-gouging or groin strikes. The takedowns won't be trained in jackets.
I was learn to strike with my back to a wall at the age of fifteen or sixteen, many years before the ufc I was also sparring in a system that allowed takedowns and follow up once you got there, in fact I won the Nebrasska classic the year they allowed throws, which was due to the fact that I trained a mixed martial art ok see now check my stats. By the way I won that with a hip toss, a round house and a palm heel strike.
As far as the rules cross over your talking about Im gonna have to slow ya down there, how on earth can you say that Sambo fighters arnt training MMA, dude did you bump yo head I got one name for ya Vlad.
Dont be scared of the truth, the truth is that it dosent have to do with mma training, it has to do with training for the ufc, or pride or a sambo tournament, MMA is the skill set you use and you train that skill set like an athlete a champion athlete at that, which means you suppliment your MMA with exorcize, diet. You guys are killin me with this false beliefe thats been pushed on you that says MMA is what happens in the ring and its a specific martial art, it isnt.
Separate names with a comma.