Not getting in between the Kirk and Argus comments (honestly, I can see where both of you are coming from, and agree with both of you, in different ways...), but to address some of the other comments from the OP:
Recently I answered a thread with this as a subject but I feel it is strong enough a point to create a new thread.
Hmm. I'm going to second JKS's advice from another thread, and suggest you also take a moment to visit the Meet and Greet forum, and let us know a bit about you... it may help to get an idea of where you're coming from, and what has helped shape your ideas. Devoid of that, at this point, there are a large range of things that raise a few flags in terms of your take on things...
MMA is martial arts. There is no different between MMA and martial arts. MMA describes a skillset and nothing more.
Er, right. No. There are large differences between MMA and "martial arts"... depending on what martial arts you're talking about. What MMA is is an expression of a form of martial arts... and is more a description of a ruleset and context, which give rise to a specific skillset, rather than being described as the skillset itself. So that was backwards.
What you are meaning to say is informal vs. formal combat. Televised, Sport MMA is informal (no uniform is enforced, quick touch of gloves, and etc.). A tournament (typical) is formal-- you wear your discipline or school's uniform and render courtesy.
Er, right. No. For one thing, no, no-one is meaning to say "informal vs. formal combat". Next, televised combat sports are pretty much the definition of "formal combat"... in that it is tightly regulated, and, as such, highly formalized. So is a tournament (which, let's face it, is what MMA competition is as well, just on a different timeline). What is worn is not what makes something "formal" or not... unless we're talking about dinnerwear. And I'd suggest not wearing a tuxedo to a BJJ tournament, really (although that would be pretty formal!). Really, what you're seeing there are two different expressions of the same thing (the touching gloves, and the "render[ing of] courtesy" etc). "Informal combat" would be a mugging, for instance.
Sport MMA is televised and must follow certain rules.
You know they follow the rules even when it's not being televised, yeah? But are you trying to suggest that your "formal tournaments" don't follow their own "certain rules"?
The techniques are revised for 1 vs. 1 combat and non-lethal applications.
No, the tactics and methods are geared towards success within the context of the ruleset. In this case, it means one on one, and non-lethal, but it also (far more importantly) means a lot of other things. I mean, those two criteria can be applied to any tournament or sporting approach for any system, so it hardly means anything....
A mixed martial artist not participating in sport fighting is not going to limit his or herself in the street and/or against multiple enemies. Grappling is effective against multiple enemies but only if techniques are exectuted quickly or used to cause an incapacitated enemy to be some sort of defense.
Er, right. And you know this how? Honestly, this is just ideal conjecture... it might be true, but it might not (especially in the idea of "not going to limit themselves").
Every martial art can potentially 'work' in Sport MMA unless it relies exclusively on illegal techniques. No established martial system can be called broken solely because a fighter is not a champion. The fighter is simply unable to apply the correct technique.
Oh dear... right. No, not every martial art can work in sport MMA. For instance, I highly doubt my Iai training is suited to the Octagon. And "illegal techniques" isn't the issue... it's to do with the context being vastly different, the tactics being completely ill-suited, and so on. Next, no-one ever said anything about a system being "broken" because a person isn't a "champion", so I don't know where that idea came from. Finally, "the fighter is simply unable to apply the correct technique"...? Seriously? I can apply my technique fine... but it just isn't suited, so wouldn't lead to success in a ring. I really don't care about being in a ring, so that's fine with me... but it really has absolutely nothing to do with not being able to "apply the correct technique". Additionally, this thinking reduces martial arts to their techniques only... and implies that they all have the same ones. That is so far from the reality that this comment has no ground to stand on.
Of course boxing is a martial art. Running could only be a martial art based solely on cowardice. The term martial is not to be interpreted loosely or misconstrued. Martial means war-like or armed. And no I mean what I say. Competition is not combat. It is competition. Combat has only one meaning as well. Running can be competition but never combat or martial.
Running has been a fundamental martial skill for millenia, you realize... Most, if not all sports and games grew out of military training methods, with running being one of the primary skills, whether as a messenger, or simply moving from place to place. Tactically (although running doesn't necessarily mean running away.... so your application of the term "cowardice" is rather inaccurate), retreating is a perfectly valid and realistic martial tactic. All armies around the world have retreat as an option, it's incredibly short-sighted and ignorant to think otherwise. Oh, and your definitions are not what I would consider correct, for the record... try telling an MMA practitioner, maybe after a match, that what they did wasn't "combat"... there's a reason it's called a "combat sport"... not a "competition sport"....
No it doesn't; it makes it part of your conditioning. Running is largely moving from one point to another faster than a jog. I run 3 miles 4 times a week. I have never used it to fight someone. American Boxing is an art with a huge sport franchise. Outside of the ring it becomes deadly. Fight a boxer outside of the ring and he won't refrain from elbows and no cutman will fix your face. There will be no referee unless your girlfriend is there but she will have little to no authority.
Hmm. Deadly? Really? So you're saying that boxers, when they get in street fights, always kill their opponents? Again, this is largely unrealistic conjecture, combined with some overblown propaganda... I'd suggest keeping your head a little closer to the ground with the experiences of a number of the members here... you're just going to get called on such exaggerations.
What do you study and have you been in a fight for your life before?
Not directed at me, but just wanted to say that this didn't really seem to have any purpose to it. Of course, the reason you asked was because you wanted to answer it yourself....
I am a veteran of 2 wars and I have fought for my life in a few times on the street. So when you use martial arts to defeat somebody who wants to kill you it puts a great many things into perspective. I hope someday you get the oppurtunity to test what your studies of gifted you
And there you are...
Look, I'm going to be blunt here. With all due respect to your military time and street encounters, this means pretty much nothing in the context of this discussion. Add this to your description of yourself on your profile page, and things fall into place... but I'm going to wait for your introduction thread in the Meet and Greet area....
