# What is MMA?



## Flying Crane

OK, I am asking this question in all honesty.  Then name itself give a big clue, but I would like to get some more information, as I have no involvement with the MMA community and I would appreciate getting on board enough to understand where this comes from and what it is all about.

I understand it is Mixed Martial Arts, taking the best (hopefully) techniques from many styles and using them in heavy-contact competition.

What I don't understand is: what makes it MMA?  Is anyone who practices more than one art considered a Mixed Martial Artist, whether or not he competes?  Has MMA evolved into an art with a somewhat standardized curriculum, at least within a certain group, or is it recreated with every individual who begins by studying more than one art?

A little enlightenment would be appreciated.  Thanks.

Michael


----------



## Phil Elmore

MMA is simply a catch-all term for martial arts that have become sporting competition.


----------



## Andrew Green

Well, it is a name, and nothing more. As soon as you start trying to define it into a "styl" you have missed the point entirely. It is not about following a specific style, or a specific instructor. It is about training the individual to be the best they can be, as an individual.

In MMA the objective is not to look a certain way, or rely on certain techniques, it is not about memorizing terms or repeating "forms", no what it is about is improvement and performance in a live environment. There is no list of techniques, no terms to remember, no testing, instead there is just hard work, sweat and experimental learning.

We don't wear rank, we don't even have rank, it just isn't necessary, or even compatible with what we do. Rank gives a hierarchy, it tells you who gets to tell who they are right or wrong in what they are doing. This is not the way we feel progress can be made, how can you work as a team when you have such a visible hierarchy? Why can't that white belt (that happens to have several years wrestling) contribute to the black belts understanding of takedowns?

When you train with people regularly you learn very quickly who is capable of what, what strengths / weaknesses each person has, and who can help you get better at different things. 2 minutes of sparring can tell you far more about a persons skill then a coloured belt and stack of certificates ever could.

So what is it we do?

Well, we train, we learn, and we sweat. Instead of asking ourselves what techniques we need to memorize to get the next belt, we ask ourselves what we need to work on to improve ourselves, not in the eyes of a examiner, but on the mats, in practice, not in theory.

We do this by constantly reassessing what we are doing, why we are doing it and how we can do it better. There is no 100 year old curriculum handed down from some old master on the other side of the world that has never been critically examined since. We wouldn't accept that in an applied science class, and Martial Arts training is an applied science.

We don't progress according to a checklist and when an examiner says we do, we progress based on our own development and our own effort. There is a range of skill levels, you can think of it as a long line if you like. Everyone starts at a different point, and not everyone can reach the same point along that line. What is important is that as we train we move up that line, and keep moving up it. There are no preset roadmarks along the way, there can't be. Not without discouraging some and limiting the rest. We can't put speed limits on progress, and that is exactly what a belt system with time restricted / based testing does.

We don't limit ourselves to what has been done, instead we are interested in what could be done. We are constantly looking for better ways, if we find a problem in what we are doing we work to fix it, not ignore as "Not a part of our style". Science was stuck in the dark ages for a long time because of this sort of thinking, and the Martial Arts should not repeat that mistake. Aristotle was brilliant, but his work has been improved on by many generations of scientists. Many of the old masters where undoubtedly brilliant martial artists as well, and their work has been improved on as well.

One of the biggest concerns many who do not know much about MMA has is often safety, and how hard it is on the body, that it is only for young athletic people. But this is simply not true. What we do is about moving forward and finding better ways to do things. This is in all aspects of training, including staying healthy and not getting hurt. We do not restrict ourselves to sports training methods from 100 years ago, instead we look to modern sports science for training methods and healthy training practices.

MMA training can be perfectly safe, and it can also be taken to a competitive level and into rings. But so can any other sport. Karate has bare knuckle full contact competitions, Tae Kwon Do goes full contact in competitions, Kung fu is the same. You can start with flag football and go all the way to the NFL too. Not everyone is capable of competing at the top level, in fact most people would get hurt if they tried, but this is the same in any sport. But everyone is capable of training, learning, exercising and having fun in a very safe environment.

The other objection many have is with the restrictions of competitions. No multiple attackers, no weapons, etc. But that is competition, not training. All of those things can be brought into the gym and experimented on. Playing basketball is not restricted to 5 on 5. Games get played all over the world with different numbers, uneven numbers, only one net, etc. MMA training is no different, just because it isn't a part of competition does not mean we are somehow magically prevented from doing it in training.

The last objection I want to look at is the "mental" aspect of training. Which again comes from those that are programmed into a certain way of thinking. If your doctor is not using herbs and leaches is he not practicing medicine? So why is it that if we aren't talking about mystical energies we are not talking about mental training? Sports Psychology is a large field that goes into very great depth on mental training, has been subjected to tests and built upon those "traditional" methods.

The mental aspect of what we do is huge, in fact it is as important if not more so then the physical parts. It is the reason a much smaller, weaker person can consistently defeat larger, stronger, more aggressive ones. To say that it isn't there is silly.

The other thing is as I have been explaining MMA is about growth and improvement. These things require critical thinking skills, without them they are impossible. What we do is not just mindlessly memorize and repeat patterns like drones, it is about constantly and critically evaluating everything we do.

I hope this helps to clear up some of the questions out there on what exactly it is MMA is about, and what we do. We are plagued by more myths and misconceptions then truths it sometimes seems.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Dunno Phil, seems a bit, simplistic a definition to me.

The little I know about the concept is it sounds similar to JKD, but without the Bruce Lee influence. 

Wiki defines it this way:
"Mixed martial arts or MMA is a term for the combat sport in which two competitors attempt to achieve dominance over one another by utilizing three general tactics: striking, finishing holds, and control. The rules allow the combatants to use a variety of martial arts techniques, including punches, kicks, joint-locks, chokes, takedowns and throws"

Which, doesn't tell me more than I already knew.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Thanks Andrew. :cheers:


----------



## Flying Crane

Thank you Andrew, that was pretty helpful.

I have another question that might help put it in perspective for me.

If a complete newbie walked in, someone with absolutely no experience in the martial arts, no base to draw from, how would that person begin his training?  Is there some kind of approach to teaching the "basics", however that may be defined?  Are there techniques or drills that they would start working on at the beginning stages of their training?


----------



## Andrew Green

Just about everyone starts with no training.

Basics would include things like 

Seperated - footwork, jab, cross, hook, front kick, round kick, catching punches, covering up, checking kicks, Shooting, Sprawling, etc.

Clinch - Digging for underhooks, controlling the head, arm drags, duck unders, body locks, shucking, controling the hips, backsteps, back arches, etc

Ground - Mount escapes, side mount escapes, getting back to feet, passing guard, sweeps, defending strikes from bottom, submissions, etc.

Weapons (If those are part of the curriculum) - Footwork, targets, parries, crashing to clinch, settip up, protecting and attacking the hands, etc.

"Mixed Martial Arts" is probably not the best term, as it is rather missleading, but it is the one that stuck.  You don't need to have experience to start, it's more about *how* you train then anything else.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

So, 1 school could have more of a ground approach, while another might focus more on weapons, etc?


----------



## Flying Crane

So basically there is some standardized curriculum, but perhaps it is a bit more loose and fluid in how it is trained?


----------



## RoninPimp

Andrew Green summed it up nicely.


----------



## CrushingFist

Sounds good. 
Anyone can help me find a MMA school in NYC?
I know there might be tons of commercials gyms and definately pricey.


----------



## RoninPimp

Tons of choices in NYC. If it was me, I'd go to Renzo Gracie's school. It aint cheap though.


----------



## Andrew Green

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> So basically there is some standardized curriculum, but perhaps it is a bit more loose and fluid in how it is trained?



No, not a standardized curriculum really, I think that would be the wrong way to put it.

The idea is that anything can and should be replaced if something else is found to work better.  One beginner might learn a scissor sweep and work that, another might get a hip bump, another a flower sweep.

The curriculum is very loose, and to think of it as "standardized" I think would be a mistake.  It's not so much the "what" but the "how" and the "why" that are important in understanding what MMA is.

Let's take teaching a jab for example.

1 - Learn it on a pad, get the basic idea standing in place.

2 - Add some footwork, feeder moves around a little, puncher has to follow and jab as the target gets presented.

3 - Loose the mitt, both go boxing gloves, Add a defence, either a catch or a cover or even a slip depending on who's coaching (I'd go against the slip for a beginner though)  Nice and slow, back and forth.  No real rythym, moving around throwing at will.

4 - Keeping things slow break the taking turns habit, just move and jab.  A very slow, very isolated form of sparring.

5 - Slowly work up speed and contact level, not to a hard level of contact on someones first day, but enough speed to challenge them and some contact.

All 5 steps will be reached easily within 15 mins or so.

This baisc method would go for teaching a beginner anything.  If it's a mount escape do it a few times no resistance to get a feel for it, top person slowly adds resistance.  If they can't hold mount teach how to do that and then continue.

But everything revolves around sparring, and is taught through isolated sparring.  Once enough basics are learnt, the limitations are stripped away.  So by the end of the first class people might be rolling for position, or sparring for takedowns, or even doing striking sparring within limits (for example straight punches only)

The goal, is to put everything into sparring, and this can include "fouls".  Want eye gouges?  Get some goggles and go.

But when I think "standardized curriculum" I tend to think "List of techniques" which is not what it is, and is what it should never become. 

Some techniques may become standard, but not because of the technique being on a list, but because of its high success rate in sparring.

So while a "Jab" may seem standard, if it where suddenly to loose it's usefullness it would be dropped without thought.

And at the same time ANY technique can be brought in, if someone can pull of a spinning hook to the head, great, they can use it, no questions asked.  Karate Kid style crane kick?  If you can make it work, go for it.

The "standard" techniques are standard because the majority of people can make use of them on a consistant basis.  Some people can pull of spinning jump kicks, most can't.  I've not seen anyone do it as one of there primary techniques, so it isn't focused on.


----------



## Flying Crane

OK, so SOMEBODY has to have some training in the proper way to throw a sidekick, for example.  If somebody in the group has this experience and mixes it into the group and everyone shares what they know, is that essentially how people learn material to work with?

When I referred to a curriculum, i didn't necessarily mean to imply it was a long list with belt requirements and such, but rather the nuts and bolts like how to properly throw a jab, or an uppercut, or an elbow, or a front kick, what kind of stances to use, etc., stuff that most people would have in their toolbox in some form or other.

I guess that is what I am most curious about, is how MMA people acquire the material that they work with.  I suppose at some point somebody had training in an art, and brought this material with them into the MMA group.  If this is how it is done, then every MMA group could potentially be radically different from the next, depending on the background of its members.


----------



## Marvin

My background is Yoshokai (Yoshinkan) Aikido, Judo, Modern Arnis, and FMA/Jeet Kune Do Concepts. I am not a very good kicking, so as a result I show what I know and bring in someone who can kick and or instruct better that I to help those that are more likely to cultivate kicking in their game( I also do the same for all the ranges). But because in the kicking range I am more likely to close for clinch  or take down, my _expression _of mixed martial arts has very little kicking. Now on the other hand one of our guys is a kicker and puncher, he hates going to the ground! So if someone shoots on him he tries to sprawl and if he gets taken down he does whatever he can to get back up.
Same class, two different approaches.

And to add onto Andrews post about standard techniques, most of the standard techniques are the fundamentals. Jab, cross, body lock, guard, side-control, roundhouse or Thai roundhouse etc.


----------



## Andrew Green

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I guess that is what I am most curious about, is how MMA people acquire the material that they work with. I suppose at some point somebody had training in an art, and brought this material with them into the MMA group. If this is how it is done, then every MMA group could potentially be radically different from the next, depending on the background of its members.



Well, a lot of skills are transferable, and you can look to experts in those areas.

So if you want to learn punching you can look at boxing, if you want to learn takedowns you can look at Wrestling and Judo.

The other thing that makes MMA work is experimentation and adaptation  that come with live drilling.  It's a very common thing in MMA gyms to "invent" techniques... and then 3-days later see someone else do the exact thing you "invented" do on a tape, in a magazine or on the internet...

What it seems to come down to is that if you set the conditions under which to train, and train under them, everyone will eventually reach more or less the same conclussions.  

Same thing happens in traditional styles that do point fighting in competitions.  If you took away there uniforms would you be able to tell who was karate, who was TKD and who was Kung fu?  

Probably not, there style of fighting is optimized for the conditions.  Combine that with lots of "borrowing" of each other, a huge inclination towards sharring (Look around, there are 1000's of techniques and strategy articles online) and eventually everyone ends up heading towards the same place, which is a optimal method of fighting under the conditions.

Different body types and mindsets will change where that place is for different people, and the place is ultimately unreachable, but as everyone tries to approach it they are going to start looking very similar.


----------



## Cujo

Good answers Andrew. Where I study my instructor has a third dan in JJJ with alot of BJJ training and is a black belt in TKD. His wife also teaches and she is a fifth dan TKD. We also have alot of guest instructors from surrounding schools. We have a good relationship with a kickboxing school and a Muay Thai school and train together alot. Also we have monthly seminars with guest instructors. Last month was Chris Lytle (UFC) and we are hoping for Mark Coleman in a month or so. (Both of my instructors are licensed promoters and do pro MMA events), next one is April 15th in Auburn Indiana. Should be a commercial on Spike tv soon and I get to be a judge. I'll be ref for the next event in JUne.
Pax
Cujo


----------



## MardiGras Bandit

CrushingFist said:
			
		

> Sounds good.
> Anyone can help me find a MMA school in NYC?
> I know there might be tons of commercials gyms and definately pricey.


 
Where are you in NYC? The Jungle Gym in the Bronx is a great place to trian. It's a brazilian jiu-jitsu school, but has a heavy focus on standup wrestling (both are big parts of MMA). The instructor, Justin Garcia, was an Abu Dhabi (the grappling world championship) competitor and devestated his opponent in his MMA debut a few months back (he is fighting again on the 22nd in Sportfighiting 3 in Jersey City if you want to check him out). I think he offers a free week to try classes.

1st post!


----------



## Andrew Green

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> 1st post!



Welcome to the site, keep making posts


----------



## MardiGras Bandit

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.


----------



## Kensai

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.


----------



## ChinJiNing

This all sounds like JKD to me ...


----------



## Marvin

ChinJiNing said:
			
		

> This all sounds like JKD to me ...


In theory yes, but sometimes indviduals will forsake functionality for aesthetic.


----------



## Odin

MMA is simple the evolution of all martial Arts.
Its th sharing of knowlege and practical apllication carried over from all martial arts and put together into a style with no stlye comabt.


----------



## kingkong89

anyone who is considered a mix martial artist is simply one who studies more than one art. when they go to compotition they dont have to say there study is MMA they could list there best study if they wanted to hope it was helpfull


----------



## kaliador

MMA is crappy selfdefence. They spend 95 % of the time on the ground, and that is not smart i selfdefence. What about the dud`s friend standing around? 

MMA is spesialiced as a SPORT, nothing more and nothing less...


----------



## Andrew Green

lol - Yup, 95% on the ground.  I take it you are quite the fan to hit that statistic?


----------



## Marvin

kaliador said:


> MMA is crappy selfdefence. They spend 95 % of the time on the ground, and that is not smart i selfdefence. What about the dud`s friend standing around?
> 
> MMA is spesialiced as a SPORT, nothing more and nothing less...


Hi Kaliador, welcome to the forums!


----------



## zDom

Andrew Green said:


> ...It is not about following a specific style, or a specific instructor...it is not about memorizing terms or repeating "forms"...no list of techniques, no terms to remember, no testing, instead there is just hard work, sweat and experimental learning.
> 
> We don't wear rank, we don't even have rank, it just isn't necessary, or even compatible with what we do. Rank gives a hierarchy, it tells you who gets to tell who they are right or wrong in what they are doing. This is not the way we feel progress can be made, how can you work as a team when you have such a visible hierarchy? Why can't that white belt (that happens to have several years wrestling) contribute to the black belts understanding of takedowns?...Instead of asking ourselves what techniques we need to memorize to get the next belt, we ask ourselves what we need to work on to improve ourselves, not in the eyes of a examiner, but on the mats, in practice, not in theory...There is no 100 year old curriculum handed down from some old master on the other side of the world that has never been critically examined since...We don't progress according to a checklist and when an examiner says we do, we progress based on our own development and our own effort. There is a range of skill levels, you can think of it as a long line if you like...There are no preset roadmarks along the way, there can't be. ... We can't put speed limits on progress, and that is exactly what a belt system with time restricted / based testing does.
> 
> We don't limit ourselves to what has been done, instead we are interested in what could be done. We are constantly looking for better ways, if we find a problem in what we are doing we work to fix it....



"Fine, I'll get my own lunar lander...with blackjack...and hookers! In fact, forget the lunar lander and the blackjack!" --- Bender the Robot.




Andrew Green said:


> Science was stuck in the dark ages for a long time because of this sort of thinking, and the Martial Arts should not repeat that mistake.



True, but:

Scientists today _still_ go through grade school, high school, college. You can't get much advanced science done if each scientist has to discover gravity and basic math by themselves.

What is so wrong with a curriculum that gives you a solid base --- and THEN you move on to advanced science, i.e., finding out what works best for the individual?

To me, it sounds like you advocate reducing all grade school down to, for example,

"2+2 = 4.

and 2 x 2 = 4

Blue + Yellow = green.

The United States is on the continent of North America

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP (the rest of the letters just really aren't all that effective so just stick with these)"

OK: now lets get to work on that cure of cancer!


You say "no list of techniques, no terms to remember" and then turn around and -- four posts later! list basics YOU think are important along with terms people must know:



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Basics would include things like
> 
> Seperated - footwork, jab, cross, hook, front kick, round kick, catching punches, covering up, checking kicks, Shooting, Sprawling, etc.
> 
> Clinch - Digging for underhooks, controlling the head, arm drags, duck unders, body locks, shucking, controling the hips, backsteps, back arches, etc
> 
> Ground - Mount escapes, side mount escapes, getting back to feet, passing guard, sweeps, defending strikes from bottom, submissions, etc.




I agree "hard work, sweat" are critical elements, but MMA practitioners aren't the only ones out there putting in "hard work, sweat."

I guess my point is: can't you define MMA without pointing your finger at TMA and saying "We are better than THOSE guys!"?


----------



## Rook

zDom said:


> "Fine, I'll get my own lunar lander...with blackjack...and hookers! In fact, forget the lunar lander and the blackjack!" --- Bender the Robot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but:
> 
> Scientists today _still_ go through grade school, high school, college. You can't get much advanced science done if each scientist has to discover gravity and basic math by themselves.
> 
> What is so wrong with a curriculum that gives you a solid base --- and THEN you move on to advanced science, i.e., finding out what works best for the individual?
> 
> To me, it sounds like you advocate reducing all grade school down to, for example,
> 
> "2+2 = 4.
> 
> and 2 x 2 = 4
> 
> Blue + Yellow = green.
> 
> The United States is on the continent of North America
> 
> ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP (the rest of the letters just really aren't all that effective so just stick with these)"
> 
> OK: now lets get to work on that cure of cancer!
> 
> 
> You say "no list of techniques, no terms to remember" and then turn around and -- four posts later! list basics YOU think are important along with terms people must know:
> 
> 
> I agree "hard work, sweat" are critical elements, but MMA practitioners aren't the only ones out there putting in "hard work, sweat."
> 
> I guess my point is: can't you define MMA without pointing your finger at TMA and saying "We are better than THOSE guys!"?


 
What he means is that all technique names are in English in American schools or in the native language of whatever country.  Few people bother with the Portuguese or japanese names of techniques.  You don't have to memorize the cultural names of techniques.  

We end up having to repeatedly explain MMA in contrast to TMA because people keep trying to blur the lines between the two in the hopes that no one will question what they are doing.


----------



## Eternal Beginner

Rook said:


> What he means is that all technique names are in English in American schools or in the native language of whatever country. Few people bother with the Portuguese or japanese names of techniques. You don't have to memorize the cultural names of techniques.
> 
> We end up having to repeatedly explain MMA in contrast to TMA because people keep trying to blur the lines between the two in the hopes that no one will question what they are doing.



This is a wee bit off topic, but to address terminology issues I don't know if it is necessarily a _bad_ thing to have like-minded people who are doing like-minded activities having a common vocabulary, be it Japanese, Portuguese or English.  They do it in music (Italian), they do it in ballet (french), and in medicine to a certain extent with latin.

What I have seen happening is all of these guys doing the same thing and giving them bizarre names so nobody is quite sure what they are talking about without pictures.  Makes sharing and discussing things difficult and wastes a lot of time when you could just say "you know manouver A" and then move onto to actual progress.

Again, not a fundamental issue in the "rightness" or "wrongness" of TMA or MMA...just an observation.


----------



## zDom

I think both sides of this "TMA/MMA" line (including me, at times) are doing WAY too much generalization.

For example, 98 percent of all the terminology I have been taught in both TKD and HKD has all been in English!

There are a couple of sets of techniques in HKD that I must also know the Korean names for ALSO (we usually refer to them with their English names) -- but this is extremely useful knowledge when communicating with students from other hapkido organizations.

And on the MMA side of things, I see a lot of differences in opinion among MMA stylists on what constitutes "MMA."

You can be sure that as more and more MMA gyms are established and the number of people making money of MMA begins to grow, so will the differences between MMA gyms.


----------



## Eternal Beginner

zDom said:


> I think both sides of this "TMA/MMA" line (including me, at times) are doing WAY too much generalization.
> 
> For example, 98 percent of all the terminology I have been taught in both TKD and HKD has all been in English!
> 
> There are a couple of sets of techniques in HKD that I must also know the Korean names for ALSO (we usually refer to them with their English names) -- but this is extremely useful knowledge when communicating with students from other hapkido organizations.
> 
> And on the MMA side of things, I see a lot of differences in opinion among MMA stylists on what constitutes "MMA."
> 
> *You can be sure that as more and more MMA gyms are established and the number of people making money of MMA begins to grow, so will the differences between MMA gyms.*


You have that right!!  I know guys who train and fight MMA who scoff at so-called "MMA gyms" in our city.  Are they right?  Who is to say.  The whole concept of MMA is flexible and usually the people who argue the loudest for what it is are just trying to convince people to accept their definition of what MMA is. 

There is no universal truth as to the definition of MMA.


----------



## tatsu dynamo

I agree. the original basis of mma competition was directly to put style against style and see who comes out on top. any one who tries to put a direct style on mma is out of thier mind. and in basis there is no style of mma. the closest "style" of any mma is the original principles of jkd. but now that has even been catagorized as a style which is totaly wrong. true mma or jkd art was ment for adaptation to all fighting methods what style came through was one made by your own mind and body or better put as your own original way of fighting which everyone has. the key point is everyone is diffrent and has a diffrent way of doing anything. immitation is the lowest form of self worth. if you are to busy mimicing someone like bruce lee or ken shamrock for example you are not finding your self in martial arts. and thats the most important goal.


----------



## kaizasosei

> Well, it is a name, and nothing more. As soon as you start trying to define it into a "styl" you have missed the point entirely. It is not about following a specific style, or a specific instructor. It is about training the individual to be the best they can be, as an individual.
> 
> In MMA the objective is not to look a certain way, or rely on certain techniques, it is not about memorizing terms or repeating "forms", no what it is about is improvement and performance in a live environment. There is no list of techniques, no terms to remember, no testing, instead there is just hard work, sweat and experimental learning.
> 
> We don't wear rank, we don't even have rank, it just isn't necessary, or even compatible with what we do. Rank gives a hierarchy, it tells you who gets to tell who they are right or wrong in what they are doing. This is not the way we feel progress can be made, how can you work as a team when you have such a visible hierarchy? Why can't that white belt (that happens to have several years wrestling) contribute to the black belts understanding of takedowns?
> 
> When you train with people regularly you learn very quickly who is capable of what, what strengths / weaknesses each person has, and who can help you get better at different things. 2 minutes of sparring can tell you far more about a persons skill then a coloured belt and stack of certificates ever could.
> 
> So what is it we do?
> 
> Well, we train, we learn, and we sweat. Instead of asking ourselves what techniques we need to memorize to get the next belt, we ask ourselves what we need to work on to improve ourselves, not in the eyes of a examiner, but on the mats, in practice, not in theory.
> 
> We do this by constantly reassessing what we are doing, why we are doing it and how we can do it better. There is no 100 year old curriculum handed down from some old master on the other side of the world that has never been critically examined since. We wouldn't accept that in an applied science class, and Martial Arts training is an applied science.
> 
> We don't progress according to a checklist and when an examiner says we do, we progress based on our own development and our own effort. There is a range of skill levels, you can think of it as a long line if you like. Everyone starts at a different point, and not everyone can reach the same point along that line. What is important is that as we train we move up that line, and keep moving up it. There are no preset roadmarks along the way, there can't be. Not without discouraging some and limiting the rest. We can't put speed limits on progress, and that is exactly what a belt system with time restricted / based testing does.
> 
> We don't limit ourselves to what has been done, instead we are interested in what could be done. We are constantly looking for better ways, if we find a problem in what we are doing we work to fix it, not ignore as "Not a part of our style". Science was stuck in the dark ages for a long time because of this sort of thinking, and the Martial Arts should not repeat that mistake. Aristotle was brilliant, but his work has been improved on by many generations of scientists. Many of the old masters where undoubtedly brilliant martial artists as well, and their work has been improved on as well.
> 
> One of the biggest concerns many who do not know much about MMA has is often safety, and how hard it is on the body, that it is only for young athletic people. But this is simply not true. What we do is about moving forward and finding better ways to do things. This is in all aspects of training, including staying healthy and not getting hurt. We do not restrict ourselves to sports training methods from 100 years ago, instead we look to modern sports science for training methods and healthy training practices.
> 
> MMA training can be perfectly safe, and it can also be taken to a competitive level and into rings. But so can any other sport. Karate has bare knuckle full contact competitions, Tae Kwon Do goes full contact in competitions, Kung fu is the same. You can start with flag football and go all the way to the NFL too. Not everyone is capable of competing at the top level, in fact most people would get hurt if they tried, but this is the same in any sport. But everyone is capable of training, learning, exercising and having fun in a very safe environment.
> 
> The other objection many have is with the restrictions of competitions. No multiple attackers, no weapons, etc. But that is competition, not training. All of those things can be brought into the gym and experimented on. Playing basketball is not restricted to 5 on 5. Games get played all over the world with different numbers, uneven numbers, only one net, etc. MMA training is no different, just because it isn't a part of competition does not mean we are somehow magically prevented from doing it in training.
> 
> The last objection I want to look at is the "mental" aspect of training. Which again comes from those that are programmed into a certain way of thinking. If your doctor is not using herbs and leaches is he not practicing medicine? So why is it that if we aren't talking about mystical energies we are not talking about mental training? Sports Psychology is a large field that goes into very great depth on mental training, has been subjected to tests and built upon those "traditional" methods.
> 
> The mental aspect of what we do is huge, in fact it is as important if not more so then the physical parts. It is the reason a much smaller, weaker person can consistently defeat larger, stronger, more aggressive ones. To say that it isn't there is silly.
> 
> The other thing is as I have been explaining MMA is about growth and improvement. These things require critical thinking skills, without them they are impossible. What we do is not just mindlessly memorize and repeat patterns like drones, it is about constantly and critically evaluating everything we do.
> 
> I hope this helps to clear up some of the questions out there on what exactly it is MMA is about, and what we do. We are plagued by more myths and misconceptions then truths it sometimes seems.
> __________________




you have thoroughly convinced me. won my vote.  i feel like i've just been converted...   MMA it is.  i really should find a community of people who are mma, because from what you're saying, i take it that many people are closet mma. - i trained with mma people in japan for a while.  i think it is practically therapeutic to just go at it from time to time.  after all,  one  truly  should  practice to defending and attacking movements from any position.


not to do harm or even concentrate on 'fighting' or competition, but to experience different realistic situations in the science of martial arts.   

actually i do know of a group of freefighters...i will have to go check it out sometime soon.



j


----------



## kaizasosei

well, sortof lame replying to one of my own old posts....but i would like to share my experiences with mma.  like i said i would, i'm sortof in the process of joining up this place that trains mma with a most excellent trainer and master of life, in my opinion.  There are other diciplines also trained there like traditional kickboxing, krav maga, boxing and bjj. 

   ok, here's the deal, i came to this place for a couple of reasons; one being that i wanted to test my skills and techniques on tough fighters.  another is that i want to see what other people can do and seek challenges.  thirdly, i was hoping it would give me the inspiration to rebuild my weak muscles and skinny shape into something a bit more solid-not to mention flexible and allround good shape.
fourth reason would be to heal my hurt soul from all the psychoterror of those martists that dont even spar OR have the sense to be kind and fair to one other.  ****, there was one more reason i thought of but im drinking this really raunchy protein shake right now which caused me to forget.

ok, but the point is, i realize that this type of sparing is totally different that other martial arts.-  sure, there are people from various backgrounds, for example my sparring partner from today was from the national team judo blackbelt. others i believe have other backgrounds, like boxing or some not martial, like weightlifting.  whatever, what im trying to get at is that when we go at it and spar-without striking- only submissionwrestling and takedowns, then everyone is sortof the same.  it's something natural in a way.  the techniques of mma are very direct and powerful, allowing little room for error. -  although i have been in many martial arts settings, never have i encountered such realistic and challenging sparing.    i have the feeling, that many of my best grappling moves do not work so well against a ready and powerful opponent.
  there are some other issues too, that technique must be executed swiftly and at the right time in the right spirit...but still, i know what im talking about, physical strength and the sheer willpower involved in some of the techniques im talking about, play a big role.  

the reason i chose freefight, and i think i remember now my other point, is that one is relatively free.  with, grappling only, this is not so, so i do believe that the inclusion of striking would give me much more of an edge, however, that's always risky and the grappling alone can be fairly dangerous.

but do you get what im getting at, all my volumes of aiki techniques, chin na- seemed very ineffective against really sweaty and alert opponents.  not saying that the moves dont work, -but im thinking it's the same conclusion i came to after wrestling with a wrestler,- what Ueshibasensei said,  'atemi(striking) should account for 70% of aikido' 

arm strength is also definately a factor.  because of the tension, hyperalertness and brute strength, many techniques are quite difficult if not impossible to execute.  perhaps, with more setups etc, im sure there are ways,,but these are forces to be reckoned with.

one move i found to be quite excellent and should be included in mma, is the bujinkan move called ransetsu-  i first attempted to head straight to mount but was once overturned by more powerful partner, so i decided to followup with an anklelock- and it works.  checkit out if you're interested.

j


----------



## kaizasosei

kaizasosei said:


> well, sortof lame replying to one of my own old posts....but i would like to share my experiences with mma. like i said i would, i'm sortof in the process of joining up this place that trains mma with a most excellent trainer and master of life, in my opinion. There are other diciplines also trained there like traditional kickboxing, krav maga, boxing and bjj.
> 
> ok, here's the deal, i came to this place for a couple of reasons; one being that i wanted to test my skills and techniques on tough fighters. another is that i want to see what other people can do and seek challenges. thirdly, i was hoping it would give me the inspiration to rebuild my weak muscles and skinny shape into something a bit more solid-not to mention flexible and allround good shape.
> fourth reason would be to heal my hurt soul from all the psychoterror of those martists that dont even spar OR have the sense to be kind and fair to one other. ****, there was one more reason i thought of but im drinking this really raunchy protein shake right now which caused me to forget.
> 
> ok, but the point is, i realize that this type of sparing is totally different that other martial arts.- sure, there are people from various backgrounds, for example my sparring partner from today was from the national team judo blackbelt. others i believe have other backgrounds, like boxing or some not martial, like weightlifting. whatever, what im trying to get at is that when we go at it and spar-without striking- only submissionwrestling and takedowns, then everyone is sortof the same. it's something natural in a way. the techniques of mma are very direct and powerful, allowing little room for error. - although i have been in many martial arts settings, never have i encountered such realistic and challenging sparing. i have the feeling, that many of my best grappling moves do not work so well against a ready and powerful opponent.
> there are some other issues too, that technique must be executed swiftly and at the right time in the right spirit...but still, i know what im talking about, physical strength and the sheer willpower involved in some of the techniques im talking about, play a big role.
> 
> the reason i chose freefight, and i think i remember now my other point, is that one is relatively free. with, grappling only, this is not so, so i do believe that the inclusion of striking would give me much more of an edge, however, that's always risky and the grappling alone can be fairly dangerous.
> 
> but do you get what im getting at, all my volumes of aiki techniques, chin na- seemed very ineffective against really sweaty and alert opponents. not saying that the moves dont work, -but im thinking it's the same conclusion i came to after wrestling with a wrestler,- what Ueshibasensei said, 'atemi(striking) should account for 70% of aikido'
> 
> arm strength is also definately a factor. because of the tension, hyperalertness and brute strength, many techniques are quite difficult if not impossible to execute. perhaps, with more setups etc, im sure there are ways,,but these are forces to be reckoned with.
> 
> one move i found to be quite excellent and should be included in mma, is the bujinkan move called hisaku- i first attempted to head straight to mount but was once overturned by more powerful partner, so i decided to followup with an anklelock- and it works. checkit out if you're interested.
> 
> j


 

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjcorrection above-bbt move i meant to write was hisaku-not ransetsu...


----------



## kailat

this is fun.  Because way back in the 80's when I started the term Mixed Martial Arts was used but it was a term that generally lumped many different arts together rather than a particular TMA.

 Today the term MMA is made up of merely; 
1. Stand up
   a) Boxing -Western- Brawling- NHB
   b) Kickboxing- Traditional-San Sau-Muay Thai (concepts)
2. Grappling-Ground Fighting
   a) BJJ
   b) Wrestling-Catch as Catch can- Greco/Roman style
   c) Ground and Pound

 " to me that pretty much makes up the sport side of MMA that most of the general public would define as MMA" 

 To refine what I was saying earlier when I was a young Karate-ka the term Mix Martial Arts that we had in our school was made up of;

 A) American Karate-Do
 B) Chung Do Kwan TKD
 C) Filipino Kali-Eskrima-Arnis
 D) Silat from Malaysia and Indonesia
 E) French Savate
 F) Kickboxing Muay Thai and Karate style
 G) Jeet Kune Do Concepts/ Jun Fan Gung Fu

  All these were the make up of my first original Karate school.  Which was actually called Armstrongs Mixed Martial Arts-Self Defense Dojo.

 It actually taught all these systems seperate and combined as one.  We had different classes that seperated them.   It was 1985 and that term MMA was tossed around..  But if you were asked then and showed what MMA was gonna turn into today we would of all been in awe probably..

  LOL


----------



## Indie12

Phil Elmore said:


> MMA is simply a catch-all term for martial arts that have become sporting competition.



Pretty much sums it up!!! MMA is pure Sport, nothing more, nothing less!!!


----------



## Indie12

kailat said:


> this is fun.  Because way back in the 80's when I started the term Mixed Martial Arts was used but it was a term that generally lumped many different arts together rather than a particular TMA.
> 
> Today the term MMA is made up of merely;
> 1. Stand up
> a) Boxing -Western- Brawling- NHB
> b) Kickboxing- Traditional-San Sau-Muay Thai (concepts)
> 2. Grappling-Ground Fighting
> a) BJJ
> b) Wrestling-Catch as Catch can- Greco/Roman style
> c) Ground and Pound
> 
> " to me that pretty much makes up the sport side of MMA that most of the general public would define as MMA"
> 
> To refine what I was saying earlier when I was a young Karate-ka the term Mix Martial Arts that we had in our school was made up of;
> 
> A) American Karate-Do
> B) Chung Do Kwan TKD
> C) Filipino Kali-Eskrima-Arnis
> D) Silat from Malaysia and Indonesia
> E) French Savate
> F) Kickboxing Muay Thai and Karate style
> G) Jeet Kune Do Concepts/ Jun Fan Gung Fu
> 
> All these were the make up of my first original Karate school.  Which was actually called Armstrongs Mixed Martial Arts-Self Defense Dojo.
> 
> It actually taught all these systems seperate and combined as one.  We had different classes that seperated them.   It was 1985 and that term MMA was tossed around..  But if you were asked then and showed what MMA was gonna turn into today we would of all been in awe probably..
> 
> LOL



Quiet a list of systems in your school, are you an instructor for all of them or did you have other instructors of certain systems teach there also?

BTW: good assessment of MMA, sport!


----------



## Tez3

MMA is made up of karate, TKD, Judo, JJ, BJJ, Muay Thai, Aikido and any other style you do. Ground and Pound isn't a style it's something you do to someone. It also include Sambo for some, wrestling for others. It doesn't include brawling unless you are trying to be offensive.


----------



## Tez3

I think this answer is so good I'm going to quote it here from another thread.

From and with thanks to Blindside for this. This is in fact the universal truth about MMA.

"MMA is a sport ruleset, the athletes competing under those rules use various martial arts to compete under that ruleset."​


----------



## TFP

Andrew Green said:


> Just about everyone starts with no training.
> 
> Basics would include things like
> 
> Seperated - footwork, jab, cross, hook, front kick, round kick, catching punches, covering up, checking kicks, Shooting, Sprawling, etc.
> 
> Clinch - Digging for underhooks, controlling the head, arm drags, duck unders, body locks, shucking, controling the hips, backsteps, back arches, etc
> 
> Ground - Mount escapes, side mount escapes, getting back to feet, passing guard, sweeps, defending strikes from bottom, submissions, etc.
> 
> Weapons (If those are part of the curriculum) - Footwork, targets, parries, crashing to clinch, settip up, protecting and attacking the hands, etc.
> 
> "Mixed Martial Arts" is probably not the best term, as it is rather missleading, but it is the one that stuck.  You don't need to have experience to start, it's more about *how* you train then anything else.



Your "clinch" definition completely forgets the Thai Clinch aspect of that position.  Something heavily used to success in most MMA gyms.  I'm guessing your still talking about a beginner, but the Plum and knees from there should be included for a beginner.


----------



## Jason Norin

For me, you need to be some sort of a fighting genius in order for you to become a good mixed martial artist. It is hard enough to learn one martial art, what more of you study different disciplines.. Some who doesn't appreciate MMA thinks that MMA matches are street fights with rules. They are definitely wrong. Thinking that way is more like saying all martial arts are barbaric.


----------



## Shai Hulud

Flying Crane said:


> Thank you Andrew, that was pretty helpful.
> 
> I have another question that might help put it in perspective for me.
> 
> If a complete newbie walked in, someone with absolutely no experience in the martial arts, no base to draw from, how would that person begin his training?  Is there some kind of approach to teaching the "basics", however that may be defined?  Are there techniques or drills that they would start working on at the beginning stages of their training?


There are some who make a transition into MMA from a particular style, say a boxer, a judoka, or a BJJ practitioner.

There are also others who enter the MMA scene starting from scratch - this too is done and is becoming more and more popular as the sport gains prominence.

You will generally need more than one coach for the sport - especially if you intend to compete on a higher level. A standard setup would be a program for your striking game, another for your ground/grappling game, and a third to string it all together and help you with general and sport-specific conditioning. You may be able to get by with just the third one (MMA coach/instructor), but you may miss out on a lot by choosing not to focus specifically on the components of your MMA build.

You'll learn the basics isolated from one another first, like in any MA, drilled statically with resistance gradually added. The ideal end result should be that the technique be weaved along with your others into a dynamic system of moves and techniques that work for you, backed up by solid conditioning.


----------



## sinthetik_mistik

i know that MMA can be fluid but these are the martial arts that "Contemporary Fighting Arts" includes as MMA:

Western Boxing
Brazilian Jiu Jitsu
Karate
Kickboxing
Shoot Fighting
Judo
Muay Thai Boxing
Western Wrestling
Catch Wrestling
Russian Sambo
Capoeira


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

LFS said:


> We launched the LFS brand in Africa this year and plan to roll out internationally going forward. The concept is based on
> a fighting concept that combines the best aspects all fighting styles to create something completely new. Our vision is to give every fighter a chance to take their destiny into their own hands and fight their way to the top.
> 
> 
> From the Kung Fu of Shaolin Monks, Jujutsu and Karate from the shores of Japan, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and the Russian military style combat of Sambo, through to today’s modern Karate, Judo, Boxing, Kickboxing, Taekwondo, Muay Thai and Mixed Martial Arts – LFS welcomes fighters of all fighting styles, from single-discipline pugilists to combination fighters.
> 
> 
> The carefully-defined rules of LFS draw on the history and complexity of martial arts and how they have evolved across the world. The rules provide fighters with an equal platform and the opportunity to showcase their cunning skills, style and stamina.
> 
> 
> With a limit of only 20 seconds on the ground, fighters have a chance to perform more all-rounded fights, having to display the best of their striking skills, as well as the best of their ground techniques due to the limited time on the ground. With 3 x 2-minute rounds, fighters will deliver a much more explosive performance, promising to deliver a higher rate of KO’s and spectacular ground and pound or submission finishes. Last Fighter Standing also has a 10-second fight action rule. This increases the pace of the fights as fighters have to perform within 10 seconds.
> 
> 
> LFS has a unique hexagon-shaped ring with five ropes. This ensures that television viewers will not miss a second of pulse-pounding excitement and will have a chance to observe a fight from every angle. It makes the sport so much more spectator friendly as well.
> 
> You can view a video in our gallery explaining LFS if you wish. We are most excited as the first grand finale is in 3 weeks time in Johannesburg with the SA Championships (16 finalist - 4 x per weight group) and also 4 international fights competing for the Wolrd LFS belt.


How does the 20 second ground rule create more all-rounded fights? It would definitely make it more appealing to the audience, combined with the 10-second fight rule, but it would also give a serious advantage to any striking arts. 

Similarly, I can't see the 10-second fight rule doing anything but hurt styles that are more defensively oriented, allowing the more aggressive styles to take control. 

With regards to the 3 x 2 minute-rounds, why would this end in a higher rate of KO's instead of just even more decisions?

Since those are the main differences from your ruleset and the most common ones that I've seen, I'm failing to see how it would provide fighters with an equal format in any unique way. Make it more exciting, sure, especially if you can get the higher rate of KO's, but I see no way that adding these extra rules it makes it more 'equal' for fighters.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> How does the 20 second ground rule create more all-rounded fights? It would definitely make it more appealing to the audience, combined with the 10-second fight rule, but it would also give a serious advantage to any striking arts.
> 
> Similarly, I can't see the 10-second fight rule doing anything but hurt styles that are more defensively oriented, allowing the more aggressive styles to take control.
> 
> With regards to the 3 x 2 minute-rounds, why would this end in a higher rate of KO's instead of just even more decisions?
> 
> Since those are the main differences from your ruleset and the most common ones that I've seen, I'm failing to see how it would provide fighters with an equal format in any unique way. Make it more exciting, sure, especially if you can get the higher rate of KO's, but I see no way that adding these extra rules it makes it more 'equal' for fighters.



You can also do crazier takedowns and riskier submisions because you know you wont get flogged for five minutes if you screw it up.

Not a huge fan of ropes though. We do them becuse a cage is just prohibitively expensive. but the ring creates all these issues of people sliding underneath them.


----------



## Hanzou

20 second limit on the ground is weak sauce.


----------



## Headhunter

LFS said:


> We launched the LFS brand in Africa this year and plan to roll out internationally going forward. The concept is based on
> a fighting concept that combines the best aspects all fighting styles to create something completely new. Our vision is to give every fighter a chance to take their destiny into their own hands and fight their way to the top.
> 
> 
> From the Kung Fu of Shaolin Monks, Jujutsu and Karate from the shores of Japan, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and the Russian military style combat of Sambo, through to today’s modern Karate, Judo, Boxing, Kickboxing, Taekwondo, Muay Thai and Mixed Martial Arts – LFS welcomes fighters of all fighting styles, from single-discipline pugilists to combination fighters.
> 
> 
> The carefully-defined rules of LFS draw on the history and complexity of martial arts and how they have evolved across the world. The rules provide fighters with an equal platform and the opportunity to showcase their cunning skills, style and stamina.
> 
> 
> With a limit of only 20 seconds on the ground, fighters have a chance to perform more all-rounded fights, having to display the best of their striking skills, as well as the best of their ground techniques due to the limited time on the ground. With 3 x 2-minute rounds, fighters will deliver a much more explosive performance, promising to deliver a higher rate of KO’s and spectacular ground and pound or submission finishes. Last Fighter Standing also has a 10-second fight action rule. This increases the pace of the fights as fighters have to perform within 10 seconds.
> 
> 
> LFS has a unique hexagon-shaped ring with five ropes. This ensures that television viewers will not miss a second of pulse-pounding excitement and will have a chance to observe a fight from every angle. It makes the sport so much more spectator friendly as well.
> 
> You can view a video in our gallery explaining LFS if you wish. We are most excited as the first grand finale is in 3 weeks time in Johannesburg with the SA Championships (16 finalist - 4 x per weight group) and also 4 international fights competing for the Wolrd LFS belt.


Nice advert but sorry it makes 0 sense you say you want to give "every fighter a chance to make their own destiny" but by doing 20 second ground limits your favouring the strikers and the wrestlers and the jiu jitsu will be forced out that will make people less well rounded as the strikers won't need to train grappling as much. Now I'm not a huge grappling fan myself I've trained it for when I did mma but it's not something I enjoyed as much as striking but I still respect it and it got it's place and you can't take it away or it is basically kickboxing


----------



## lianxi

Flying Crane said:


> OK, I am asking this question in all honesty.  Then name itself give a big clue, but I would like to get some more information, as I have no involvement with the MMA community and I would appreciate getting on board enough to understand where this comes from and what it is all about.
> 
> I understand it is Mixed Martial Arts, taking the best (hopefully) techniques from many styles and using them in heavy-contact competition.
> 
> What I don't understand is: what makes it MMA?  Is anyone who practices more than one art considered a Mixed Martial Artist, whether or not he competes?  Has MMA evolved into an art with a somewhat standardized curriculum, at least within a certain group, or is it recreated with every individual who begins by studying more than one art?
> 
> A little enlightenment would be appreciated.  Thanks.
> 
> Michael



The best explanation I've found is that MMA is considered a sport, like football - there are organizations within that sport - ie - the UFC is an organization within the sport of MMA that organizes fights, makes rules, issues titles, etc - so UFC is like the NFL within the sport of MMA.


----------



## Martial D

lianxi said:


> The best explanation I've found is that MMA is considered a sport, like football - there are organizations within that sport - ie - the UFC is an organization within the sport of MMA that organizes fights, makes rules, issues titles, etc - so UFC is like the NFL within the sport of MMA.


I also heard that a fist is when you clench your hand into a ball, and that water is wet.


----------



## JowGaWolf

MMA is short for Messy Martial Arts


----------



## FriedRice

lianxi said:


> The best explanation I've found is that MMA is considered a sport, like football - there are organizations within that sport - ie - the UFC is an organization within the sport of MMA that organizes fights, makes rules, issues titles, etc - so UFC is like the NFL within the sport of MMA.



This is correct.

It's like Boxing. Kung-Fu has hand boxing, but it's not Boxing as it is known by the Boxing rules. 

MMA is a sport with specific rules. Training, ie. BJJ and Muay Thai separately, doesn't make someone a Mixed Martial Artist.


----------

