Can we call MMA a style?

[Martial D]

I thought that post was reasonably clear, MD.

Not one single sentence of that post is grammatically coherent. I'll concede to your superior broken English comprehension abilities I suppose.

 

[DaveB]

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.

If I create a new type of flamethrower meant for immolating people and make 1000 units, does it stop being a weapon of death because you and 5 other guys use it to light your fire place?

I don't think it does.

What I did say was that if 700 people use it as a fire place lighter, I am happy to concede that it's definition has changed for most people, but to me it is still a weapon.

If 990 people use it as a fire lighter and 10 years ago everybody who had one modded my design to make it safer so it was now less suited to immolation and more effective lighting fireplaces AND of the remaining models that were unmodded 8 of 10 no longer work and the last 2 are in storage, well then it's not a weapon anymore it is just a fire lighter.

I think Judo is on the cusp of becoming a fire lighter. TKD is probably more lighter than flamethrower but if I'm discussing the whole art not a specific school, then it's still to me a flamethrower.

You and Martial D are confusing the intent of a practitioner or teacher with the definition of what x ma is. In one breath you ask about something like Taichi, "is taichi a martial art" an art practiced in some form by millions world-wide. In the nect breath you say " mwhat about a guy who does it like this..."

Are you discussing Taichi as a whole or Taichi as done by that guy???

Discussed as a whole I call Taichi a martial art because the origin of the art that I heard was of a fighting art and it is still widely practiced as such. Perhaps not a majority do Taichi as fighting art but enough that the combative element is not extinct.

incidentally basing a martial art on relaxation exercises doesn't change the fact that you were building a martial art when you did so. if I followed that rationale I would be saying arts cannot evolve into sports, which is the opposite of what I said.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If I create a new type of flamethrower meant for immolating people and make 1000 units, does it stop being a weapon of death because you and 5 other guys use it to light your fire place?

I don't think it does.

What DOES happen, is it actually ALSO becomes a fireplace lighter. Nobody is arguing that MMA ceases to become a sport. We're pointing out that there's not a binary choice here.

What I did say was that if 700 people use it as a fire place lighter, I am happy to concede that it's definition has changed for most people, but to me it is still a weapon.

If 990 people use it as a fire lighter and 10 years ago everybody who had one modded my design to make it safer so it was now less suited to immolation and more effective lighting fireplaces AND of the remaining models that were unmodded 8 of 10 no longer work and the last 2 are in storage, well then it's not a weapon anymore it is just a fire lighter.

That's requiring a binary choice (for you). That's simply not the case. There's plenty of overlap between sport and MA - we see it in any art that focuses on SD, but also competes. Tomiki Aikido would be a good example.

I think Judo is on the cusp of becoming a fire lighter. TKD is probably more lighter than flamethrower but if I'm discussing the whole art not a specific school, then it's still to me a flamethrower.

You and Martial D are confusing the intent of a practitioner or teacher with the definition of what x ma is. In one breath you ask about something like Taichi, "is taichi a martial art" an art practiced in some form by millions world-wide. In the nect breath you say " mwhat about a guy who does it like this..."

I don't think we are. We are pointing out that a thing need not be one or the other. It can be both, either at the same time (as with the example of Tomiki Aikido), or each separately, in different locations.

Are you discussing Taichi as a whole or Taichi as done by that guy???

Discussed as a whole I call Taichi a martial art because the origin of the art that I heard was of a fighting art and it is still widely practiced as such. Perhaps not a majority do Taichi as fighting art but enough that the combative element is not extinct.

incidentally basing a martial art on relaxation exercises doesn't change the fact that you were building a martial art when you did so. if I followed that rationale I would be saying arts cannot evolve into sports, which is the opposite of what I said.

I've said nothing about Taichi.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

If I create a new type of flamethrower meant for immolating people and make 1000 units, does it stop being a weapon of death because you and 5 other guys use it to light your fire place?

I don't think it does.

What I did say was that if 700 people use it as a fire place lighter, I am happy to concede that it's definition has changed for most people, but to me it is still a weapon.

If 990 people use it as a fire lighter and 10 years ago everybody who had one modded my design to make it safer so it was now less suited to immolation and more effective lighting fireplaces AND of the remaining models that were unmodded 8 of 10 no longer work and the last 2 are in storage, well then it's not a weapon anymore it is just a fire lighter.

I think Judo is on the cusp of becoming a fire lighter. TKD is probably more lighter than flamethrower but if I'm discussing the whole art not a specific school, then it's still to me a flamethrower.

You and Martial D are confusing the intent of a practitioner or teacher with the definition of what x ma is. In one breath you ask about something like Taichi, "is taichi a martial art" an art practiced in some form by millions world-wide. In the nect breath you say " mwhat about a guy who does it like this..."

Are you discussing Taichi as a whole or Taichi as done by that guy???

Discussed as a whole I call Taichi a martial art because the origin of the art that I heard was of a fighting art and it is still widely practiced as such. Perhaps not a majority do Taichi as fighting art but enough that the combative element is not extinct.

incidentally basing a martial art on relaxation exercises doesn't change the fact that you were building a martial art when you did so. if I followed that rationale I would be saying arts cannot evolve into sports, which is the opposite of what I said.

What about a car? That absolutely is a weapon, but at the same time it's a tool to drive around. Same with some martial arts...they can have multiple purposes.
Or, as one of my friends says, por que no los dos?

 

[jobo]

What about a car? That absolutely is a weapon, but at the same time it's a tool to drive around. Same with some martial arts...they can have multiple purposes.
Or, as one of my friends says, por que no los dos?

to be fair absolutely ANYTHING,can be a weapon if you use it as such, cotton bud in the eye, very nasty

 

[DaveB]

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

I don't see how?

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

So the TMA people competed to find who was best. And in trying to work who was best the codified a set of tactics and techniques and called it mma?
Or did they codify a set of rules to enable that competition to happen and call that mma?

My understanding is that it is the latter.

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 didn't know I needed to be. I gave an opinion based on what I believed was true. If I'm wrong about the origin of mma then so be it, this is hardly an emotional topic for me.
But yours is the first suggestion I've encountered that differs on that topic.

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.

But the old had one thing in common with the modern... They were competitions.

 

[Martial D]

Yes, there are mma competitions, just as there are karate competitions, Mui Thai competitions, boxing competitions, street fighter 3 competitions, and pie eating competitions. You can compete at almost anything.

That says nothing of what they are competing at, nor does it make the activity a sport.

Here's a question. If the first karate guys had held a competition before they used it in the field, would that in any way change the classification of what it is now?

Would it suddenly become not a martial art even though the activity was identical?

 

[jobo]

Yes, there are mma competitions, just as there are karate competitions, Mui Thai competitions, boxing competitions, street fighter 3 competitions, and pie eating competitions. You can compete at almost anything.

That says nothing of what they are competing at, nor does it make the activity a sport.

Here's a question. If the first karate guys had held a competition before they used it in the field, would that in any way change the classification of what it is now?

Would it suddenly become not a martial art even though the activity was identical?

i am for once in complete agreement with you. The arbitrary defintion that ma are only ma if they have been at sometime in the last few thousand years been used on a battlefield is just plain silly

 

[DaveB]

Yes, there are mma competitions, just as there are karate competitions, Mui Thai competitions, boxing competitions, street fighter 3 competitions, and pie eating competitions. You can compete at almost anything.

That says nothing of what they are competing at, nor does it make the activity a sport.

Here's a question. If the first karate guys had held a competition before they used it in the field, would that in any way change the classification of what it is now?

Would it suddenly become not a martial art even though the activity was identical?

If there's no martial art, just a competition, what are they competing at?

 

[Martial D]

If there's no martial art, just a competition, what are they competing at?

EXACTLY.

So just what do mma people compete at?

 

[Tez3]

A man bounces another

Mmm intriguing and very possibly not a martial art, a marital one perhaps?

So just what do mma people compete at?

At nothing. They compete in whatever.

 

[Tez3]

I find it funny watching non MMA people trying to define what it is. Perhaps let MMA people define what they do... if they want to?

 

[DaveB]

I find it funny watching non MMA people trying to define what it is. Perhaps let MMA people define what they do... if they want to?

Well feel free to correct any misconceptions I may have.

 

[DaveB]

EXACTLY.

So just what do mma people compete at?

They compete at mma. Mma is a competition where people try to hit or submit one another.

Just as you can't have a karate tournament unless you already have karate, you can't have an mma tournament without having martial arts to mix.

But jujitsu is jujitsu, not mma. karate is karate and so on. MMA is the competition format unless I am mistaken?

If someone has codified a set of techniques and strategies and called it mma and this codified art is what is taught at mma gyms then I am indeed very much mistaken.

If not then I don't really get your point?

 

[Steve]

I just had a thought.

@DaveB is suggesting that MMA is a sport, and so cannot be a martial art. The two are mutually exclusive. It's true that a dog will never be a cat, even though both animals might crap on your floor. They might both be floor crappers, but a shitzu will never be a calico. In the same way, MMA, as a sport, just is a different thing. Is that true, DaveB? I'm sincerely not trying to put words in your mouth, but to sum up.

If this is somewhat true, my confusion, and maybe some other people, is that this is independent of application. If sport and martial art are different creatures, this would be true regardless of application. A sport that is trained and used for self defense would not be a martial art because it is a sport. Period. Trying to justify your perspective beyond this just muddies the waters.

@gpseymour suggests that a style can be both a sport and a martial art. That the two are not mutually exclusive. He's not too worried about distinguishing between a sport or a martial art. For him, the key is application, which as I explained above, is really irrelevant to DaveB. So, a dog that craps on the floor or a cat that craps on the floor. The salient point is that they are both crapping on the floor. And the end result, even though both are coming at it from different directions, is a stinky room.

@DaveB I said before, I think you're a smart dude, but I predict that your perspective will soften over time. You have some interesting ideas that I appreciate. The reality, though, is that martial arts styles are both too inbred and also too diverse to make it easy to apply binary reasoning to them. They are not all one thing or another. Usually, they're some combination of both.

 

[Steve]

They compete at mma. Mma is a competition where people try to hit or submit one another.

Just as you can't have a karate tournament unless you already have karate, you can't have an mma tournament without having martial arts to mix.

But jujitsu is jujitsu, not mma. karate is karate and so on. MMA is the competition format unless I am mistaken?

If someone has codified a set of techniques and strategies and called it mma and this codified art is what is taught at mma gyms then I am indeed very much mistaken.

If not then I don't really get your point?

I think 10 years ago, this would have been true. Today? I think it's both. People train karate for the competition just as people train MMA for the self defense. People train both for fitness and fun, and a host of other reasons that have little to do with either competition or self defense.

 

[Tez3]

They compete at mma

Nope, they compete in MMA. The people on this thread seem to want correct English.

Well feel free to correct any misconceptions I may have.

Why does it matter to non MMA people whether it's a style or not? People who train and compete in MMA are happy with what they do, so why do non MMA people feel they have to argue about what it is? It seems quite weird that some want it to be a style, other's a sport and yet more others don't want it to exist.

 

[jobo]

They compete at mma. Mma is a competition where people try to hit or submit one another.

Just as you can't have a karate tournament unless you already have karate, you can't have an mma tournament without having martial arts to mix.

But jujitsu is jujitsu, not mma. karate is karate and so on. MMA is the competition format unless I am mistaken?

If someone has codified a set of techniques and strategies and called it mma and this codified art is what is taught at mma gyms then I am indeed very much mistaken.

If not then I don't really get your point?

But this eases a deeper question, I'm in the middle of designing my own version of karate, i do this bit by bit, week by week as i slightly and some times substantial change the techneque to suit me, and my body type and my pluses and weakness. I'm big with long arms and legs, a lot of the close quarter stuff doesn't suit me, I like to fight at range, some of it doesn't fit my range of motion particularly going low or high kicks. With in half a dozen runs I've redesigned it , to work for me.

my insteucter leaves me to it, though once in a while says, " very good joe, but its not actually karate" but it is, ! I learned it at a karate class, its far more effective for me, than something designed for the body shape of ancient Asian people.

so is what I'm doing karate or not?

 

[Steve]

Nope, they compete in MMA. The people on this thread seem to want correct English.



Why does it matter to non MMA people whether it's a style or not? People who train and compete in MMA are happy with what they do, so why do non MMA people feel they have to argue about what it is? It seems quite weird that some want it to be a style, other's a sport and yet more others don't want it to exist.

Just a guess, but I think it's because we're on a discussion forum where people discuss things, and the topic at hand is whether MMA has evolved into a discrete style or not. It's a topic that comes up every few years.

 

[Martial D]

They compete at mma. Mma is a competition where people try to hit or submit one another.

Just as you can't have a karate tournament unless you already have karate, you can't have an mma tournament without having martial arts to mix.

But jujitsu is jujitsu, not mma. karate is karate and so on. MMA is the competition format unless I am mistaken?

If someone has codified a set of techniques and strategies and called it mma and this codified art is what is taught at mma gyms then I am indeed very much mistaken.

If not then I don't really get your point?

You can enter an MMA tournament doing just karate, just wrestling, just boxing, etc. You'll lose, but you can do it. MMA is just a catch all term for fighting at all ranges, and the current state of the art(for those that don't want to get murked) reflects that.

Still, we see exceptionally talented specialists(Wonderboy, Verdun, Maia etc) having some success.

So are you prepared to concede that any and all fighting styles that were not originally designated for war(Tai chi, aikido, etc) are not actually martial arts? You sort of have to to remain consistent.