MetalBoar
Black Belt
Late reply I know, but I have to say, yes, absolutely, it can be thought of and/or classified as a martial art. Many people obviously do think of it, or classify it, as such.
Now, is MMA a martial art? That's a mostly (maybe entirely) subjective question. We'd have to all agree on the definition of "martial art" and then we could decide whether it fit the definition. From my experience in general, this thread being a good example, we don't all agree on a definition for "martial art". Since we don't all agree, and at least in the US there doesn't seem to be any regulatory body who determines such things, I'm not sure that it's a useful distinction to make.
I say that it may not be useful, because I'm not sure what benefit is to be had from the classification. With MMA you generally know what you're getting when you sign up. For now, until it becomes significantly diluted by trying to cater to the lowest common denominator (which will likely happen at some point), most MMA schools tell you right up front that you're going to be training in fighting skills that fit a particular ruleset or sets, and that you may also be doing conditioning and strength training exercises to support that, and then that's what you do.
If MMA schools were selling themselves based on other criteria I'd have concerns, but they don't generally do so. I don't see a lot of MMA schools claiming to enable spiritual or character development or that they're going to provide you with the education in the traditions or other cultural aspects that may be associated with traditional martial arts. I guess some of them claim that they're giving you the best training for self defense, and that can be debated, but that's a common issue for all "martial arts" styles. I think that MMA schools are the best choice if you want to develop skills that are appropriate for MMA competitions. Since that's what they usually claim to sell, I don't feel that they misrepresent themselves significantly most of the time, as a class.
Now, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say things like, "MMA isn't something that I think of as a martial art (by my definition)", or, "I have no interest in MMA, whether it's a martial art or not", or "MMA is completely lacking in important, core, elements that I require in a martial art", or even, "MMA has degraded the overall quality of martial arts by sucking the air out of the room with a spectator friendly, but ultimately debased mockery of what a martial art should be!" These statements, even the inflammatory ones, can be discussed in a more useful fashion because you aren't trying to argue about what something, that we don't have a shared and agreed upon definition for, "is".
Now, is MMA a martial art? That's a mostly (maybe entirely) subjective question. We'd have to all agree on the definition of "martial art" and then we could decide whether it fit the definition. From my experience in general, this thread being a good example, we don't all agree on a definition for "martial art". Since we don't all agree, and at least in the US there doesn't seem to be any regulatory body who determines such things, I'm not sure that it's a useful distinction to make.
I say that it may not be useful, because I'm not sure what benefit is to be had from the classification. With MMA you generally know what you're getting when you sign up. For now, until it becomes significantly diluted by trying to cater to the lowest common denominator (which will likely happen at some point), most MMA schools tell you right up front that you're going to be training in fighting skills that fit a particular ruleset or sets, and that you may also be doing conditioning and strength training exercises to support that, and then that's what you do.
If MMA schools were selling themselves based on other criteria I'd have concerns, but they don't generally do so. I don't see a lot of MMA schools claiming to enable spiritual or character development or that they're going to provide you with the education in the traditions or other cultural aspects that may be associated with traditional martial arts. I guess some of them claim that they're giving you the best training for self defense, and that can be debated, but that's a common issue for all "martial arts" styles. I think that MMA schools are the best choice if you want to develop skills that are appropriate for MMA competitions. Since that's what they usually claim to sell, I don't feel that they misrepresent themselves significantly most of the time, as a class.
Now, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say things like, "MMA isn't something that I think of as a martial art (by my definition)", or, "I have no interest in MMA, whether it's a martial art or not", or "MMA is completely lacking in important, core, elements that I require in a martial art", or even, "MMA has degraded the overall quality of martial arts by sucking the air out of the room with a spectator friendly, but ultimately debased mockery of what a martial art should be!" These statements, even the inflammatory ones, can be discussed in a more useful fashion because you aren't trying to argue about what something, that we don't have a shared and agreed upon definition for, "is".
) with MMA being lumped in with my chosen martial art even though I enjoy watching MMA occasionally.
