I think there are legitimate arts that deserve a place in the Olympics. I don't count MMA as one since unlike legitimate traditional arts such as Karate, Judo and Kung Fu, MMA is just a bunch of random techniques someone tossed together, usually using a bastardized BJJ base. Disagree? Fine, then what is your curriculum and training structure? How about unique content? Didn't think so. It's a bit of this, a bit of that, punch the bag, roll roll roll, ground n pound, and "The UFC makes me legit". Blech.
Well, I'll go ahead and disagree on multiple counts.
A)MMA isn't legitimate
Well, that depends on what you define as "legitimate". Let's analyze 3 possibilities:
1
a : lawfully begotten;
specifically : born in wedlock
b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth <a
legitimate child>
2
: being exactly as purposed
: neither spurious nor false <a
legitimate grievance> <a
legitimate practitioner>
3
a : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements <a
legitimate government>
b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right <a
legitimate king>
4
: conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards <a
legitimate advertising expenditure
(source: mirriam-webster online)
So for the first definition, I would take your meaning of "legitimate" to be synonymous with "traditional". If so, then it would be a tough call to declare Judo "legitimate" when it was first demonstrated in 1932 (with it's founder leading the demonstration, no less), or even in 1964, when it was a mere 80 years old (the blink of an eye, compared to jujutsu--from which it derived-- which had a couple hundred years on it). Or we could look at Taekwondo, which was formed around 1955, and became an official olympic medal event in 2000... 45 years. Even less time than judo.
In comparison, if we were simply going with the term MMA, we could ostensibly say that MMA's tradition only goes back 17 years to the first UFC event.
However, the UFC was an extension of Brazil's Vale-Tudo which in turn began in the '20s with the Gracie Challenge. And really, mixed-art challenges go back a
lot further. So if "legitimate" is "traditional", than MMA would have more "legitimacy" than Taekwondo had from inception to inclusion as a medaled event in the Olympics
,and about as much "legitimacy" as judo had.
For the second definition of legitimate--being exactly as purposed; neither spurious nor false-- you would have a tough time showing that MMA is: a)anything other than what it is purposed to be, or b)spurious or false. And I say you can't prove MMA to truly be spurious because of its Vale-Tudo pedigree.
For definition 3a, MMA operates in accordance with established legal forms and requirements, and for 3b, I don't think it applies. (and if 3b DOES apply, I re-posit my arguments from definitions 1 and 2).
For definition 4, MMA conforms to recognized principles and accepted rules and standards... atleast within itself.
B) Unlike Karate, Judo, and Kung Fu, MMA is a bunch of random techniques thrown together...
Well, I have two objections to this:
1) Of the three counter-examples you listed, only Judo has a single unifying set of techniques. Karate and Kung Fu are both umbrella terms that apply to a large number of styles, many of which, under each umbrella, will often have divergent techniques. As far as whether or not they were thrown together.... who can say? This is especially true with kung-fu...
2)MMA, in all its names, has had at least 80 years to test their techniques in the ring, and what doesn't work gets thrown out. Especially in the current of competition, a fighter that doesn't have a systemized strategy and set of tactics just won't be able to react quickly enough on the professional level to last long. Name me one top-performing Mixed Martial Artist who has a belt AND a bunch of techniques "thrown together.
3) It would be tough to say an organization like Mileti
C)...usually using a bastardized BJJ Base.
This actually shows you aren't very knowledgeable on MMA in general. A number of different bases are used, the most common being boxing, Muay Thai, wrestling, or og course BJJ. Here's a sampling of some of the well-known,
recent names:
1) Rashad Evans: While he
has a black belt in BJJ, he only got it at the begining of
this year. His base is in wrestling.
2) Chuck Liddel: has studied BJJ, but his primary arts are Kenpo, Koei-kan, and kickboxing. He also has background in wrestling.
3) Matt Hughes: Wrestling, followed by Milletich Fighting Systems
4)
Randy Couture: Wrestling (in fact, her was an alternate for the Olympics), though he has boxing and bjj.
5)
Anderson Silva: 1st bb: TAEKWONDO. 2nd bb: JUDO 3rd: BJJ.
6) Brock Lesner: Oh snap! Another wrestler! NCAA and... WWE!
:rock:
D) MMA lacks curriculum and training structure.
Go actually look up different MMA camps. You'll find you're mistaken. Many camps have an established curriculum and training structure. They're just not unified in their structure. Then again, neither is Karate or Kung Fu.
E) MMA lacks unique content.
Well, so what? Why does it have to be unique content to be legitimate? And really, since you value tradition AND uniqueness? Generally, if something is unique, it's not traditional.
F) MMA is a bit of this, bit of that, roll roll roll, ground and pound, and "UFC makes me legit".
Shall we go with
reductio ad absurdum, or is a simple strawman fallacy enough for this one?
Seriously, man, you just posed the exact same generalized stereotyping Tez3 said people DO with MMA. Your argument is just asinine, and frankly it's insulting to people who take the time to hone their skills in MMA.
(See, Tez, I'm an equal opportunity bastard. And I think there are many who could
argue that point. It is quite an easy
argument to make!):wavey:
opcorn: Well, this thread will probably implode shortly, so on that note, I'll just bow out, kick back and watch the show. 
I'll just go with what I said earlier...odds are, you'll never see it in the Olympics, given the fact that many people already have a distorted vision of what MMA is, some sort of change will probably have to be made, in addition to the current ruleset that we already see. OTOH, whats the worst that could happen if they did include it? Trial basis perhaps?
