I think it's ambiguous because any single MMA person I ever meet has a unique training history. There's no one set of arts. There are very common ones.
Syncretic is the word I think you're looking for. Basically, a word that describes the combination of different ideas/themes.
Yes and no. I mean there are a lot of mma gyms around and an increasing number of young fighters who have only ever trained in those gyms. Time marches on.
You can go to a gym thatās intended to prepare you compete in the mma ruleset and learn a mixture of styles, from a multitude of coaches specialized in those styles.
And then there's the fabulous Dominick Cruz, who actually learned the Firefighter style (which is most definitely a fighting style) after becoming a wrestling guru as a young man, lost a scholarship, became a UFC legend.
To me your comment sounded very much like the same thing Iāve heard/seen other people say to excuse training methodologies that donāt teach people how to fight in any circumstances.
Absolutely agree with you here.
I think there will be a time when distinctive new styles or arts will emerge from gyms that train for mma, and the funny part is in the end they will look like karate in their functionality.
Thereās only so many different ways for the body to move, the biggest if not only real differences between styles is training methodologies, and what kinds of techniques they focus on.
Talking about specific tactics and training that we have lots of footage and experience in. Take a simple thing like dismounting from vehicle and spacing while moving. Watch some of what the Russian troops are doing lately. They dismount the second that they draw fire, then bunch up around the vehicle. This is attributed to a lack of infantry training. Watch them muzzle each other over and over. It makes me wonder what their friendly fire accident toll is at this point. We can go farther with this. Take a CQB training course for instance. Positioning and covering corners is basics. The way to stack for entry, etc. @drop bear has said he was a breacher if I remember correctly. He is likely more qualified to speak to the entry training. My point is that it takes quite some time for our military to train people to be able to execute this with precision. It takes time because it is not an intuitive pursuit. Our military excels as a result. You are correct that people donāt get good at things they donāt do. That is the reason why each armed conflict brings new lessons, and updates techniques. Often great discoveries have come from warfare, my favorite example is the stirrup.
So, if someone includes anything not directed at fighting, you assume nothing they do is?
I base my judgements on my experience.
seriously though it's good for groundwork). Going through fight tactics, some psychology is useful 
. From a ref's point of view learn the rules of the style/class you are competing in, please!
You are right. In the throwing art, a drill may be called as a form. Chinese wrestling has 24 forms. Actually there are 24 drills that's repeated left and right.
So, again, you're saying they're mutually exclusive, which they are not. Adding balance training that goes beyond what's useful for combat doesn't inherently prevent someone from developing fighting skills. Could they develop those skills faster if they were the highest priority? Yes. But it's not binary - they can do something less well and still do that thing.
Again, someone claiming I stated things Iāve never said.
I am aware but you did serve in the military didnāt you? That makes you qualified to speak to the topic. You have training from some of the worldās best.
Serving in the military doesnāt qualify someone to speak about guns.
You just did. Reread what I quoted.
None of which has any bearing on the discussion at hand.
Again, not relevant to the discussion at hand.
Which would have been a more reasonable statement to make in your original response to my comment.
