Can we call MMA a style?

[drop bear]

Good point, DB. It's entirely possible for someone to train for and participate in a sport (MMA, boxing, Judo), training only the moves for that sport, within the rules of that sport, for the purpose of self-defense. And someone teaching/coaching that sport could easily make a few adjustments and teach the sport (while training for the sport, under the rules of the sport) for self-defense.

Eg. Charlie Zelenof.

 

[drop bear]

Not really. The focus of boxing is too narrow. MMA training makes a better case but it's still limited because of its focus and the more focussed the individual is on sport the further he gets from SD.

Wrestling and boxing were origionally designed to prepare people for war.

The Spartans wrestled.

Soldiers wrestle and box now. With a focus of making them better soldiers.

 

[drop bear]

Ok this is a sport.

Designed to train self defence.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Eg. Charlie Zelenof.

That never gets old, man.

 

[punisher73]

Good point, DB. It's entirely possible for someone to train for and participate in a sport (MMA, boxing, Judo), training only the moves for that sport, within the rules of that sport, for the purpose of self-defense. And someone teaching/coaching that sport could easily make a few adjustments and teach the sport (while training for the sport, under the rules of the sport) for self-defense.

I have seen places that do exactly that. They use the platform of MMA and then "add in" all of the fouls and banned techniques of the sport to round out their curriculum and train in de-escalation, proper usage of force in a self-defense scenario (ie: when it is ok to gouge out an eye). How is that not a martial art?

All of MMA comes from TMA's, they are found in arts that were designed for self-protection. Modern boxing was based off of fencing and was taught for protection in London. As someone else pointed out, the Greeks had "Pankration", the first MMA to train their warriors.

Now, if you REALLY want to get specific with language, then most of what we call "traditional martial arts" in regards to kung fu, karate etc. (the empty hand portions) are NOT martial arts. They were not designed, taught and used on the battlefield. But, we know what is meant when we say the term "martial art". It doesn't apply necessarily to military usage, but also includes personal combat in a self-preservation situation. Which, MMA falls under.

 

[drop bear]

By the way fouls have almost nothing to do with turning a sport into a self defence.

It is more about using the skills you have to solve specific problems.

 

[webmaster786]

MMA is not a martial arts . Sports that uses a variety of traditional martial arts techniques.One style does not beat another style. A man bounces another. Usually the best person can win or the individual athlete can adapt well to the set of rules to achieve this sport. Initially, MMA was just a competition. Then, in the context of the MMA rules and context, it was a fight

 

[Martial D]

MMA is not a martial arts . Sports that uses a variety of traditional martial arts techniques.One style does not beat another style. A man bounces another. Usually the best person can win or the individual athlete can adapt well to the set of rules to achieve this sport. Initially, MMA was just a competition. Then, in the context of the MMA rules and context, it was a fight

Would you mind rephrasing this in English?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

By the way fouls have almost nothing to do with turning a sport into a self defence.

It is more about using the skills you have to solve specific problems.

I agree with the "almost nothing". There are really only two significant impacts of rules/fouls: what a competitor need not train to defend (for competition), and what a competitor need not train to use (in competition). It doesn't change the usefulness of what they do train, and the holes they don't train for are not as big as might be supposed against a "normal" person (accepting that those of us who, as you say, like to get punched in the head as a hobby, are not normal). If a boxer's overall defense is good, kicks by an untrained/slightly trained person aren't a game changer - even kicks to the groin.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

MMA is not a martial arts . Sports that uses a variety of traditional martial arts techniques.One style does not beat another style. A man bounces another. Usually the best person can win or the individual athlete can adapt well to the set of rules to achieve this sport. Initially, MMA was just a competition. Then, in the context of the MMA rules and context, it was a fight

The key word appears in your last two sentences: "was". There are individuals and places that train the "style" that has resulted from the test of that competition, with or without intent to compete. That makes it similar to other things we'd call "martial arts".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Would you mind rephrasing this in English?

I thought that post was reasonably clear, MD.

 

[DaveB]

Okay, but that means we have to track an activity back to some original purpose. What if the purpose changes? If someone opens a school teaching self-defense using what has been learned from MMA competition (so the "MMA style"), then the purpose of the activity within that school is self-defense. But it's MMA - the exact same things they were practicing at the gym where she trained, using all the same methods, approaches, etc. The only difference is that their purpose is self-defense (whether individuals choose to compete or not).

I explained exactly what I think about this in an earlier post.

 

[drop bear]

I agree with the "almost nothing". There are really only two significant impacts of rules/fouls: what a competitor need not train to defend (for competition), and what a competitor need not train to use (in competition). It doesn't change the usefulness of what they do train, and the holes they don't train for are not as big as might be supposed against a "normal" person (accepting that those of us who, as you say, like to get punched in the head as a hobby, are not normal). If a boxer's overall defense is good, kicks by an untrained/slightly trained person aren't a game changer - even kicks to the groin.

You could fing a few situations where going school yard is pretty much the best option. So say if someone bites you bend their nose back.

But otherwise it would be things like not getting separated in a gang fight or if your friend gets dropped run over and protect him. That kind of tactical concern that does not really matter if you are doing boxing or judo so long as you are destroying dudes.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I explained exactly what I think about this in an earlier post.

The reasoning doesn't make sense to me, Dave. Since intent can change, why does some original intent matter? If original intent doesn't matter, then is it not more a matter of the intent of the training?

Or is there something inherent in the development that's the point here? For instance, I could argue (I wouldn't, but it would be a valid argument to make) that something is only a "martial art" if there's more than just fighting involved. I could say it has to include specific training for making someone a better person, and something akin to fighting techniques. If I argued that, we could look at what's taught in any given school and make a judgment of whether they fit that definition. And, again, it could shift quickly.

 

[drop bear]

The reasoning doesn't make sense to me, Dave. Since intent can change, why does some original intent matter? If original intent doesn't matter, then is it not more a matter of the intent of the training?

Or is there something inherent in the development that's the point here? For instance, I could argue (I wouldn't, but it would be a valid argument to make) that something is only a "martial art" if there's more than just fighting involved. I could say it has to include specific training for making someone a better person, and something akin to fighting techniques. If I argued that, we could look at what's taught in any given school and make a judgment of whether they fit that definition. And, again, it could shift quickly.

And sports kind of suggest they make better people as well.

 

[DaveB]

Wrestling and boxing were origionally designed to prepare people for war.

The Spartans wrestled.

Soldiers wrestle and box now. With a focus of making them better soldiers.

Spartans wrestled for fun, exercise and competition, not on the battlefield.

Again I think these things are great training and useful additions and even viable self defence methods within a limited context. There is nothing wrong with taking up boxing for self defence reasons. It just doesn't change it from being an activity whose purpose is to entertain.

 

[DaveB]

MMA was created for fighting, same as any other martial art.It started off as TMA people competing against each other, and evolved in the direction of what worked.

Even so, your distinction that to be a martial art something had to have been designated as such by some person from antiquity seems a little off and more than a little arbitrary. MMA contains all of the same elements as any other style, is trained basically the same as any other style, and practiced for the same wide variety of reasons as any other style. A martial art is simply a style of hand to hand combat. What you use it for after the fact is neither here nor there.

By the way, to my understanding (open to correction) taichi started out as a set of relaxation exercises that later evolved into a fighting style, which would make it, according to your arbitrary classification, not a martial art.

Calling something based on its purpose for being is arbitrary? Ok.

Your opening statement contradicts it's self. Was mma created for fighting or for TMA people to compete?

It's an important distinction because if I want to get so maists to compete i write down a set of rules.
If I want to win a fight i practice attacks and defences that will help.

I don't expect the rulebook I wrote to win a fight and I don't expect a room full of fighters to understand that the fight will be broken into 3 minute rounds when I try and punch them in the face with my fighting techniques.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And sports kind of suggest they make better people as well.

At the sport, on purpose. My intent was to speak to developing traits not directly tied to physical competition. Of course, even that leads to the whole issue of things that don't have to be actively taught, if they are learned lessons from the competition (managing emotions under pressure, etc.).

 

[DaveB]

Ok this is a sport.

Designed to train self defence.

That looks awesome.

But as I said to martial D, I doubt I will get very far by quoting the rules of this new sport at my assailant.

I have no doubt that the training one might do for that sport, or the experience of the sport its self would make me a pretty awesome warrior in real life, especially if I got to some kind of international elite level.

I look forward to the day someone codifies the methods one must use to survive the real life version of that scenario. That would be a fascinating martial art to learn.

 

[Martial D]

Calling something based on its purpose for being is arbitrary? Ok.

No, but you're ascribing it's purpose arbitrarily.

Your opening statement contradicts it's self. Was mma created for fighting or for TMA people to compete?

TMA people trying to prove their art was the best, through fighting each other. What contradiction?

It's an important distinction because if I want to get so maists to compete i write down a set of rules.
If I want to win a fight i practice attacks and defences that will help.

For a guy trying to define what something is now based on what it was originally supposed to be(which again, excludes some more traditional styles like taichi), you don't seem to be super informed vis a vis the origins of mma.

I don't expect the rulebook I wrote to win a fight and I don't expect a room full of fighters to understand that the fight will be broken into 3 minute rounds when I try and punch them in the face with my fighting techniques.

As above. MMA didn't spring fully grown with weight classes, rounds, and rules. Early mma had none of these things, and much of it still doesn't.