Has MMA popularity helped or hurt the MA Community?

[ralphmcpherson]

Like I said, when it's all said and done, there's usually more said than done. The Martial Arts are about actions. If it was pure philosophy then mere words would suffice.

When, however, one is claiming the superiority of efficiency of a given physical act, asking them to prove it isn't outside the reasonable.

What's more, it's only been in very recent times that asking someone to prove it has been dismissed. The TMA's of even the recent past is replete with examples of 'challenge matches' to test one's skills.

The 'I'm really good..........but I have nothing to prove' phenomenon is a very recent invention. And, it might be quite reasonable..........until the discussion becomes 'what is effective'..............and it seems a bit absurd for some folks to claim their skills are effective, but simultaneously proclaiming they are under no obligation to prove it.

You are right, of course, that this is merely my humble opinion........other's mileage may vary.

I think I like to believe that all arts (within reason) are effective if trained correctly. I dont really think there is an art you can train properly in for many years and not end up a decent fighter. When it comes down to fighting competitively there is more to it than "which art is better". For these reasons I find it to be little ridiculous when you hear people say "kararte wont help you in a real life situation because it doesnt work in the UFC". I love the UFC and I love watching any MMA but I dont use it as a gauge to see which arts work and which dont or which art is better than another.

 

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

One of the problems of this art vs this art is there is a differnce between fighting another martial artist in a one on one, sanctioned match, at a predetermined time and place and being attacked by the unknown on the street.

One is compitition the other is personal war.

A MMA guy beating down a traditional JJ guy only proves that that particular MMA guy can beat that particular TJJ guy in a match.

It says nothing about which one can better handle someone trying to bash a crowbar over your skull, a knife to the gut or someone sticking a gun in your face.

I also sparred with an MMA guy once and when I stuck my fingers in his eyes in an Irmei nage and took him down and then simulated stomping him in the ribs and face, he got all bent out of shape about me using foul tactics and made excusses that even if I stomped him for real it would not have made a differnce.

I ended it there because I knew that if we went again I was going to have to really hurt him or get hurt myself, it was not worth it to prove a point.

Another time a MMA guy was talking smack about knife arts, so we went at it with me with a Sharkeez training knife and he unarmed.

He ignored the cuts to the hands and face, the stab to the back of the head (Occuput) as he enterd for a double leg TD and slamed me to the mats.

"See that stuff dont work." but was I going to pull a real blade and kill him to prove a point I already know and don't care if he does? No because we live in a Nation of laws that does not allow Duels. (unfortuantly IMO.)

I dont care about MMA vs TMA, I care about good people vs bad people out to hurt, rob, rape or kill.

MMA with some focused training for the street or TMA with some live training can both help good people vs the bad.

I'd rather be allies than enemies anyday, we can all learn from each other and build relationships that last.

I think as time goes on their will be much more positive back and forth between TMA, MMA, RBSD, Combatives, what have you. I allready see it with people who train at my school and the previous school we were at.
Judoka's, Military combatives, Kickboxers, Boxers, Ninjakas, Kung Fu, Wrestling, people with that in their background have come through the doors to train Combat and Aiki Jujutsu and all of us are the better for it.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I'm quite confident that one can find more MMA guys willing to test their skills under the least restrictive rules possible than TMA guys. That kind of goes without saying.

I think the dynamic has shifted the way that it does in anything else.

The new newer system is pushed hard because those who take part in it want to promote it and grow it. And nothing promotes or grows anything more than authenticity/proof in the pudding/being the real deal/etc.

The older systems are well established and those who take part in them have nothing to prove, so they rest on their laurels and the quality generally suffers as financial gains are maximized.

Also, the newer player will often take risks and chances that the established player will not. The established player is at a point where there is something to lose and chances are risky. The newer player must take chances because they have less to lose and the chances are rewarding.

It is pretty much the same in every industry. Sometimes, the established system's decline is recognized by those who take part and action is taken to reverse the decline. Pretty much the only way to do that is to start raising the bar and streamlining by cutting loose excess baggage.

And the point there is that there's cocky......and then there's being willing to back it up. I have to respect someone who, when push comes to shove, is willing to put up or shut up........that's really all i'm saying.

No argument there.

Though I also think that the average MMA student, competitive or no, is generally someone who is in a position to take greater physical risks. The average TMA student in the US, regardless of the art, is a person with a day job, a mortgage, and likely a family, and cannot risk regular sports injuries.

That said, if you are in my shoes, a single dad with full custody, working a full time job to pay the bills and is not independently wealthy, be willing to admit that you are and respect the guys and gals who both have and take the opportunity to take the physical risks to prove their skills in the ring.

Daniel

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Another point in all this is that TMA's have proven themselves time and time again and should not have to come out and enter tournaments each time a new generation of young martial artists come around just to "prove a point". In the 50's and 60's they had real "anything goes" fights, particularly in korea and japan. These matches were brutal you could strike the groin, eye gouge, bite etc and the winner quite often hobbled out of the ring with their leg broken in 2 places and covered in blood. These guys were karate and tkd practitioners mainly and they really did put their arts to the test. My GM fought in these matches as a young man and says they were brutal. I know what he teaches works and I dont need to see one of his students enter the UFC to prove it.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

One of the problems of this art vs this art is there is a differnce between fighting another martial artist in a one on one, sanctioned match, at a predetermined time and place and being attacked by the unknown on the street.

One is compitition the other is personal war.

A MMA guy beating down a traditional JJ guy only proves that that particular MMA guy can beat that particular TJJ guy in a match.

It says nothing about which one can better handle someone trying to bash a crowbar over your skull, a knife to the gut or someone sticking a gun in your face.

I also sparred with an MMA guy once and when I stuck my fingers in his eyes in an Irmei nage and took him down and then simulated stomping him in the ribs and face, he got all bent out of shape about me using foul tactics and made excusses that even if I stomped him for real it would not have made a differnce.

I ended it there because I knew that if we went again I was going to have to really hurt him or get hurt myself, it was not worth it to prove a point.

Another time a MMA guy was talking smack about knife arts, so we went at it with me with a Sharkeez training knife and he unarmed.

He ignored the cuts to the hands and face, the stab to the back of the head (Occuput) as he enterd for a double leg TD and slamed me to the mats.

"See that stuff dont work." but was I going to pull a real blade and kill him to prove a point I already know and don't care if he does? No because we live in a Nation of laws that does not allow Duels. (unfortuantly IMO.)

I dont care about MMA vs TMA, I care about good people vs bad people out to hurt, rob, rape or kill.

MMA with some focused training for the street or TMA with some live training can both help good people vs the bad.

I'd rather be allies than enemies anyday, we can all learn from each other and build relationships that last.

I think as time goes on their will be much more positive back and forth between TMA, MMA, RBSD, Combatives, what have you. I allready see it with people who train at my school and the previous school we were at.
Judoka's, Military combatives, Kickboxers, Boxers, Ninjakas, Kung Fu, Wrestling, people with that in their background have come through the doors to train Combat and Aiki Jujutsu and all of us are the better for it.

100% agree with all of that. The sooner people realise that events like the UFC are a sporting event and not a "fight" the better. If you are attacked on the street it is a completely different ball game to having an organised bout with rules. This is why I keep saying that I hate it when people base what works and what doesnt on what they saw in the octagon.

 

[Shifu Steve]

Like I said, when it's all said and done, there's usually more said than done. The Martial Arts are about actions. If it was pure philosophy then mere words would suffice.

When, however, one is claiming the superiority of efficiency of a given physical act, asking them to prove it isn't outside the reasonable.

What's more, it's only been in very recent times that asking someone to prove it has been dismissed. The TMA's of even the recent past is replete with examples of 'challenge matches' to test one's skills.

The 'I'm really good..........but I have nothing to prove' phenomenon is a very recent invention. And, it might be quite reasonable..........until the discussion becomes 'what is effective'..............and it seems a bit absurd for some folks to claim their skills are effective, but simultaneously proclaiming they are under no obligation to prove it.

You are right, of course, that this is merely my humble opinion........other's mileage may vary.

Mac I like your point here. While philosophically I would stand by violence is a measure but one that should be used after other avenues are exhausted I think that the martial arts are like all things in the sense that attitudes and opinions on the subject go in and out of fashion with the times. In our times the fear of repercussions for violence is substantial. This may contribute to the claim that "I'll mix it up with the best and prevail but I don't need (want) to because in the end this is not what its about."

While there's truth in that it's partial truth. In my opinion the end result of Martial Arts isn't about violence at all. However, there is an aspect of violence that is integral to its foundation. Denying that is akin to denying the entire reason you train. The violence exists. Whether the skill set that enables it is meant to deter it is not the whole point. It is there, it is relevant, and it should be embraced. No matter what your take is.

I wrote a post on open sparring a few months back. Most of the responses thought it was a bad idea due to legal issues/ safety, etc. I don't disagree with the reasons behind those posts but I think Brian was the one that brought up a good point; challenges USED to be more the rule than the exception. Now they are viewed as anti social and violent. I'm not arguing there aren't good reasons behind that, I'm just saying things change.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Mac I like your point here. While philosophically I would stand by violence is a measure but one that should be used after other avenues are exhausted I think that the martial arts are like all things in the sense that attitudes and opinions on the subject go in and out of fashion with the times. In our times the fear of repercussions for violence is substantial. This may contribute to the claim that "I'll mix it up with the best and prevail but I don't need (want) to because in the end this is not what its about."

While there's truth in that it's partial truth. In my opinion the end result of Martial Arts isn't about violence at all. However, there is an aspect of violence that is integral to its foundation. Denying that is akin to denying the entire reason you train. The violence exists. Whether the skill set that enables it is meant to deter it is not the whole point. It is there, it is relevant, and it should be embraced. No matter what your take is.

I wrote a post on open sparring a few months back. Most of the responses thought it was a bad idea due to legal issues/ safety, etc. I don't disagree with the reasons behind those posts but I think Brian was the one that brought up a good point; challenges USED to be more the rule than the exception. Now they are viewed as anti social and violent. I'm not arguing there aren't good reasons behind that, I'm just saying things change.

The personality of the person comes into it. I truly believe that it is not very difficult at all for a lot of people to go through their whole life without ever getting in a fight. Most of my mates are in their late 30's and are yet to experience getting in a fight. This is largely due to their personality, basically unless someone hurts them or their family they just wont fight, they see it as barbaric and immature. I have some other mates where if you look at their girlfriend or accidentally bump into them in a bar they will start a fight. I am one of the ones who just wont fight unless someone attacks me or my family, so i view self defence very differently to someone who regularly gets in or starts fights. For me, when i think of self defence or fighting I think of life or death situations because that is the ONLY reason I will resort to violence, it also means it is highly unlikely that I will ever have to use what Ive learnt.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Another point in all this is that TMA's have proven themselves time and time again and should not have to come out and enter tournaments each time a new generation of young martial artists come around just to "prove a point". In the 50's and 60's they had real "anything goes" fights, particularly in korea and japan. These matches were brutal you could strike the groin, eye gouge, bite etc and the winner quite often hobbled out of the ring with their leg broken in 2 places and covered in blood. These guys were karate and tkd practitioners mainly and they really did put their arts to the test. My GM fought in these matches as a young man and says they were brutal. I know what he teaches works and I dont need to see one of his students enter the UFC to prove it.

Unfortunately, the arts as they are taught today are very different from what they were in the fifties and sixties. Taekwondo in particular has radically shifted.

Much of the change is meant to address needs that simply did not exist at the time those arts were being developed. TMA schools address fitness needs, character building, child care, and socialization. All of these needs were met outside of the dojo at that time.

In the fifties and sixties, people had much more in person socialization than they do now. The average person did a lot more physical work in the course of a day. Most moms were at home with school aged kids who played together after school and did physical activities because video games had not been invented. Also, a degree of rough housing was a part of growing up and the draft was still in effect, so as a general rule, most guys were more capable of handling themselves by the time they got out of high school and definitely by the time they got out of the service.

Because TMA schools were the only game in town, they were the ones who affected by that shift. Had MMA been around in the early seventies, it would have gone through the same cycles with TMA. But because it came later, it bypassed those changes. Because TMA dojos/dojangs meet those needs in a martial setting, MMA gyms are freed of the need to do so and to concentrate on their own core demographic.

No matter how brutal an art's tournaments were in decades past, schools that teach that art must remain relevant and cannot rest on fifty year old laurels.

I think that the most positive thing that MMA has done (and I think that it has done many positive things) is that it has proven that hardcore schools can still survive, and even thrive. That should be great news to TMA schools, because it means that not everyone needs to be a daycare center/dojo or make their program soft just to stay in business.

Daniel

 

[Shifu Steve]

The personality of the person comes into it. I truly believe that it is not very difficult at all for a lot of people to go through their whole life without ever getting in a fight. Most of my mates are in their late 30's and are yet to experience getting in a fight. This is largely due to their personality, basically unless someone hurts them or their family they just wont fight, they see it as barbaric and immature. I have some other mates where if you look at their girlfriend or accidentally bump into them in a bar they will start a fight. I am one of the ones who just wont fight unless someone attacks me or my family, so i view self defence very differently to someone who regularly gets in or starts fights. For me, when i think of self defence or fighting I think of life or death situations because that is the ONLY reason I will resort to violence, it also means it is highly unlikely that I will ever have to use what Ive learnt.

Ralph I don't disagree with your logic here. As I said, in my view the end result to why I train is not violence. However I think that the notion of using violence as a last resort may be a more favorable approach now then say 40 years ago. I like to say things in posts like "I'm not advocating x over y" because it seems like the responsible way to go but in truth deep down I feel that sometimes aggression on aggression is an answer. Philosophically I reason that's an incorrect statement but practice has taught me otherwise.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

There was nothing stopping them then or now........but when it's all said and done, it's easier to say than do.

What stops the elite TMA practitioners is that they already are active in their own tournament circuits and promoting their own arts. It's the same reason that elite baseball players don't compete in the olympics; they are jammed up enough already and frankly, it isn't worth it for them. The world series is more important than the olympics.

Also, TMA tournaments each have their own fairly specialized rules. Part of what makes the elite players elite is that they are the best under that particular rule set. I am sure that if you just threw any of the top MMA players into a WTF tournament with Stephen Lopez, they'd be out their element.

Not because Lopez is a super fighter, but because while elite MMA players have been focusing on MMA for the past five years, Lopez has been training in WTF TKD only for the past five years.

Take Lopez and jam him into a UFC match, however, and he'd be equally out of his element.

Each rule set has its own unique flair and is designed to showcase a specific skill set. Some are broader than others, but each has its focus and unique flavor. Each, including MMA, should be appreciated in its own right.

Daniel

 

[ralphmcpherson]

What stops the elite TMA practitioners is that they already are active in their own tournament circuits and promoting their own arts. It's the same reason that elite baseball players don't compete in the olympics; they are jammed up enough already and frankly, it isn't worth it for them. The world series is more important than the olympics.

Also, TMA tournaments each have their own fairly specialized rules. Part of what makes the elite players elite is that they are the best under that particular rule set. I am sure that if you just threw any of the top MMA players into a WTF tournament with Stephen Lopez, they'd be out their element.

Not because Lopez is a super fighter, but because while elite MMA players have been focusing on MMA for the past five years, Lopez has been training in WTF TKD only for the past five years.

Take Lopez and jam him into a UFC match, however, and he'd be equally out of his element.

Each rule set has its own unique flair and is designed to showcase a specific skill set. Some are broader than others, but each has its focus and unique flavor. Each, including MMA, should be appreciated in its own right.

Daniel

Well said Daniel. Most of the top martial artists are too busy focussing on tournaments to 'prove a point' by jumping into the octagon. Steven lopez is a good example. Even if he wanted to 'prove a point' (which he wouldnt) it would not be worth his time to withdraw from tkd events, potentially lose sponsors, train for an extended period learning the rules of MMA all to just prove a point. The same can be said for successful competitive karate, kung fu etc fighters. The funny thing is that nobody suggests that george st pierre should start going in tkd competitions to 'prove a point'.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Well said Daniel. Most of the top martial artists are too busy focussing on tournaments to 'prove a point' by jumping into the octagon. Steven lopez is a good example. Even if he wanted to 'prove a point' (which he wouldnt) it would not be worth his time to withdraw from tkd events, potentially lose sponsors, train for an extended period learning the rules of MMA all to just prove a point. The same can be said for successful competitive karate, kung fu etc fighters. The funny thing is that nobody suggests that george st pierre should start going in tkd competitions to 'prove a point'.

I've heard the statement that fighting never solves anything........but one thing fighting does solve are arguments ABOUT fighting. When the argument is fighting, the guy that loses the fight, loses the argument. It's really pretty simple, when it's all said and done.

That's what I liked so much about the old UFC..........the rules were simple........two men enter, the guy who taps out, passes out or gets knocked out loses.......and zero excuses.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Well said Daniel. Most of the top martial artists are too busy focussing on tournaments to 'prove a point' by jumping into the octagon.

I'm sure that a lot of them would love to do so, but the time that it would take to train to be competitive is time away from what they're already doing, which an elite practitioner is heavily invested in.

Steven lopez is a good example. Even if he wanted to 'prove a point' (which he wouldnt) it would not be worth his time to withdraw from tkd events, potentially lose sponsors, train for an extended period learning the rules of MMA all to just prove a point. The same can be said for successful competitive karate, kung fu etc fighters. The funny thing is that nobody suggests that george st pierre should start going in tkd competitions to 'prove a point'.

Nor should they. St. Pierre is heavily invested in MMA. Training to be competitive in WTF sparring would be time away from MMA, which really would not help him. The WTF style of fighting is so divorced from what St. Pierre does in the octagon that it would not be beneficial to him from a cross-training stand point either.

Frankly, I don't think that anyone should do it to prove a point. They should do so because it is something that they would like to do. This past Thursday, I got my first taste of MMA and really enjoyed it. However, I am heavily invested in kumdo and hapkido. While MMA would enhance my hapkido, it simply comes down to a matter of time. I am going to try to get more personal exposure, but I doubt that I will be able to get enough to where I'd be really competitive.

Who knows though. Stranger things have happened.

Daniel

 

[Tez3]

The 'danger' of training MMA comes after a few months and you start thinking 'what if I just had one fight, just to see if I can do it'!

Nothing wrong with training MMA and not fighting it's a personal choice though in some cases the choice is made for you if like me you are on the wrong side of 40ish and a bit or are carrying an injury. It's not so much a competitive thing at least not against another person more against yourself, you just want to know if you can do it, can you fight, bring up the aggression etc.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

The 'danger' of training MMA comes after a few months and you start thinking 'what if I just had one fight, just to see if I can do it'!

Nothing wrong with training MMA and not fighting it's a personal choice though in some cases the choice is made for you if like me you are on the wrong side of 40ish and a bit or are carrying an injury. It's not so much a competitive thing at least not against another person more against yourself, you just want to know if you can do it, can you fight, bring up the aggression etc.

Well said. I love kendo/kumdo because it challenges me in some way every time I spar. Competing is fun, but I'd do it even if I never competed.

My one taste of MMA (not even real MMA) was enough to tell me that, time permitting, yes, I'd train in MMA. Compete? Maybe. But being over forty, competitive MMA is not really the direction that I would expect to go.

Daniel

 

[Tez3]

Well said. I love kendo/kumdo because it challenges me in some way every time I spar. Competing is fun, but I'd do it even if I never competed.

My one taste of MMA (not even real MMA) was enough to tell me that, time permitting, yes, I'd train in MMA. Compete? Maybe. But being over forty, competitive MMA is not really the direction that I would expect to go.

Daniel

We do amateur rules, no head shots standing or on the floor, great fun! What we have here is interclub comps, just for fun, it means there's a fight for nearly everyone who wants to have a go, on mats, not cage or ring and done by weight and experience.

 

[Laus]

Pre-post caveat...I'm replaying to this thread after some 11 pages worth of other replies, none of which I've read, so the following is in no way a response to anything above other than the original post.

I don't entirely understand MMA, I don't follow it or watch UFC and all that, so most of what I know about it is second hand knowledge. But I value mixed skills. I've crosstrained off and on through the years - on more often than off, basically, whenever I've had the time and money - and because of that I find the idea of being limited to a particular style, well, limiting.

On the other hand, I started out in, and spent six years in, an extremely traditionalist Goju Ryu dojo, and while life has since led me elsewhere I am "by birth" a traditionalist. But while I was kind of good at that, it turns out that's not really the environment for me, and time led me in a direction I doubt that original Sensei expected (and definately didn't like). There are a whole lot of reasons why it happened that way, not all of which I've worked out yet, but at the most basic level I am far more interested in surviving a fight than I am at being a proper goju-ka - whatever that even means, I'm not sure I even know anymore.

Frankly, I'm the kind of person for whom practicality is always going to win out over tradition - if I can use it, it's golden, wherever it comes from. I suppose in that respect I don't really get MMA because there are rules, and I'm all about living through being attacked by someone who actually wants to hurt/rape/kill me, in other words, situations where surviving is the only rule. But the "drawing on everything" aspect of MMA makes perfect sense to me.

But then there is the spiritual side of things, which is the one thing that draws me to traditionalism. I am not an overtly spiritual person, and if you don't know me well (or read the crap I post here) you would never even know I even think about such things. But I do. I got a lot out of the traditional training, and I would never say otherwise, but I reached a place where there didn't seem to be anywhere else to go, technically or spiritually. While my primary concern is being able to take care of myself in a life-or-death situation, I also want to test myself and push my limits in the mental, emotional, spiritual sense. I suppose that also has its practicality. Survival isn't just about being alive, afterall.

One of the most limiting things I found about my early training was that it always seemed that spiritual battle with my 'self' was only legitimate if it was occcuring within specified paramaters (I suspect this had more to do with my instructor, well-meaning or not, than with Goju itself, before anyone jumps down my throat!). Essentially, it felt as if my life outside the dojo meant nothing in the grand scheme of spiritual growth, as if it didnt count unless it was supervised, and occured over a specific timeline. And you know, that to me was the most ridiculous damn thing...you can't prescribe spiritual growth.

So do I think MMA has helped or hurt, or that it's irrelevant? I really couldn't say. I've been doing this for seven years, so while I'm certainly not a beginner, I've only just scratched the surface. I am also wary of lumping all the arts in together. MMA is one thing, and all the other arts are, well, whatever art they are. Parts of each may be used in MMA, but they are not MMA, and MMA is not them, and so far as I can tell they are all alive and well in their own right. Okay, that whole sentence says a whole lot of nothing, I know, which is maybe my point. The popularity of various martial arts comes and goes. Eventually MMA's popularity will decline, and something else will take its place, and while the landscape may be somewhat changed I don't think we can really say it will be better or worse.

Evolution happens whether we like it or not. If it takes a slice out of the traditional arts, then perhaps that is something to mourn. There is value in preserving tradition, and it is always sad when such things disappear. But perhaps this tradition we ascribe to them is more about glamourizing them than about reality. Martial arts are, or at least were, at their inception, about battle, about surviving that battle, about getting the job done and getting home at the end of the day. If MMA is about using all the available tools to succeed in battle, real or staged, is that really contrary to the spirit of martial arts?

I don't have the answers to these questions. I have some opinions, but they are in no way set in stone...I've been doing this long enough to know that I don't know a whole lot. I suppose this post is more me thinking out loud than anything else.

Osu.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Pre-post caveat...I'm replaying to this thread after some 11 pages worth of other replies, none of which I've read, so the following is in no way a response to anything above other than the original post.

I don't entirely understand MMA, I don't follow it or watch UFC and all that, so most of what I know about it is second hand knowledge. But I value mixed skills. I've crosstrained off and on through the years - on more often than off, basically, whenever I've had the time and money - and because of that I find the idea of being limited to a particular style, well, limiting.

On the other hand, I started out in, and spent six years in, an extremely traditionalist Goju Ryu dojo, and while life has since led me elsewhere I am "by birth" a traditionalist. But while I was kind of good at that, it turns out that's not really the environment for me, and time led me in a direction I doubt that original Sensei expected (and definately didn't like). There are a whole lot of reasons why it happened that way, not all of which I've worked out yet, but at the most basic level I am far more interested in surviving a fight than I am at being a proper goju-ka - whatever that even means, I'm not sure I even know anymore.

Frankly, I'm the kind of person for whom practicality is always going to win out over tradition - if I can use it, it's golden, wherever it comes from. I suppose in that respect I don't really get MMA because there are rules, and I'm all about living through being attacked by someone who actually wants to hurt/rape/kill me, in other words, situations where surviving is the only rule. But the "drawing on everything" aspect of MMA makes perfect sense to me.

But then there is the spiritual side of things, which is the one thing that draws me to traditionalism. I am not an overtly spiritual person, and if you don't know me well (or read the crap I post here) you would never even know I even think about such things. But I do. I got a lot out of the traditional training, and I would never say otherwise, but I reached a place where there didn't seem to be anywhere else to go, technically or spiritually. While my primary concern is being able to take care of myself in a life-or-death situation, I also want to test myself and push my limits in the mental, emotional, spiritual sense. I suppose that also has its practicality. Survival isn't just about being alive, afterall.

One of the most limiting things I found about my early training was that it always seemed that spiritual battle with my 'self' was only legitimate if it was occcuring within specified paramaters (I suspect this had more to do with my instructor, well-meaning or not, than with Goju itself, before anyone jumps down my throat!). Essentially, it felt as if my life outside the dojo meant nothing in the grand scheme of spiritual growth, as if it didnt count unless it was supervised. And you know, that to me was the most ridiculous damn thing...you can't prescribe spiritual growth.

So do I think MMA has helped or hurt, or that it's irrelevant? I really couldn't say. I've been doing this for seven years, so while I'm certainly not a beginner, I've only just scratched the surface. I am also wary of lumping all the arts in together. MMA is one thing, and all the other arts are, well, whatever art they are. Parts of each may be used in MMA, but they are not MMA, and MMA is not them, and so far as I can tell they are all alive and well in their own right. Okay, that whole sentence says a whole lot of nothing, I know, which is maybe my point. The popularity of various martial arts comes and goes. Eventually MMA's popularity will decline, and something else will take its place, and while the landscape may be somewhat changed I don't think we can really say it will be better or worse.

Evolution happens whether we like it or not. If it takes a slice out of the traditional arts, then perhaps that is something to mourn. There is value in preserving tradition, and it is always sad when such things disappear. But perhaps this tradition we ascribe to them is more about glamourizing them than about reality. Martial arts are, or at least were, at their inception, about battle, about surviving that battle, about getting the job done and getting home at the end of the day. If MMA is about using all the available tools to succeed in battle, real or staged, is that really contrary to the spirit of martial arts?

I don't have the answers to these questions. I have some opinions, but they are in no way set in stone...I've been doing this long enough to know that I don't know a whole lot. I suppose this post is more me thinking out loud than anything else.

Osu.

MMA the sport evolved from MMA the concept. The UFC originally was about bringing different arts that claimed effective fighting techniques, and putting them together with extremely limited rules (No biting/No eye gouging) and seeing which ones walked out........and of course since the Brazilians had been doing this under the term 'Vale Tudo' the Gracies intended it as a showcase of BJJ.

As such, it was really originally about testing what worked for self-defense, and paralleled and was influenced by individuals like Bruce Lee and his development of JKD and the concept of breaking from convention and applying what works.

From that beginning of the concept of MMA, the sport of MMA evolved, naturally. The reason rules evolved in MMA, for the most part, is that it was necessary to receive state athletic commission sanctioning.

As it is, however, MMA is the LEAST amount of rules for any kind of combat sport, in the sense of allowing the greatest latitude for fighting short of going to a bar and picking a fight.

 

[adamx]

I will say one thing mma is spawning the new mcdojo in austin everyone teaches some form of "mma" now. Some of these schools never taught more then one style before and some schools are brand new. But dont teach styles like ex: bjj, muay thai but only "mma".....
Kinda makes me mad as I used to watch alot of mma(pride fc and pre zuffa ufc) a few years ago but now I just cant stand to hardly watch it, now that its the "cool" thing to do. Plus ufc now adays make its so damn dramatic like its wwe, but its just lies to try to sell a ppv..
Sorry for the intro rant.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

I will say one thing mma is spawning the new mcdojo in austin everyone teaches some form of "mma" now. Some of these schools never taught more then one style before and some schools are brand new. But dont teach styles like ex: bjj, muay thai but only "mma".....
Kinda makes me mad as I used to watch alot of mma(pride fc and pre zuffa ufc) a few years ago but now I just cant stand to hardly watch it, now that its the "cool" thing to do. Plus ufc now adays make its so damn dramatic like its wwe, but its just lies to try to sell a ppv..
Sorry for the intro rant.

Dont worry, like all fads it will pass. It will always be there but as more MMA mcdojos open up (and theres plenty opening around me) the novelty will wear off and the next 'new exciting
martial art' will take off.