The MMA vs. Traditional misnomer (Informal vs. Formal Combat)

[lklawson]

I was questioning the OP's perceptions of what is "Formal" and "Informal" combat. I don't think there is a difference; if anything, I would venture to say that modern sportive settings are a lot more formal than say, a roof top challenge fight in 1950's Hong Kong.

Apparently there was more than a little bit of formality to those matches.

And would you call the martial artists who took part in those rooftop fights professionals? I would think that most people today might classify them as "amateurs", though, certainly, some of them took their training to a "professional level" if you will. But they weren't a part of any organization, or sport, which usually denotes a "profession."

Do you understand what "Professional" means? If you get paid to do martial arts then you're a professional martial artist. This ranges from teaching martial arts to performing them. The guy who owns the TKD Dojang down on the corner is every bit as much a "Professional Martial Artist" as is Anderson Silva.

But whether you're a "professional" or not is irrelevant. Certainly there were professional warriors who learned martial arts. It makes no sense to say that they weren't martial artists. So, that's not my point. But does it make sense to call a battlefield, or a rooftop fight a "formal" fight as opposed to an "informal" fight?

I think your idea of "formal" and "informal" may need some tweaking. Particularly in antiquity, there were many instances where joining armies on the battlefield was much more "formal" than you seem to give them credit for.

When asking such questions, they don't care pro or amateur, they're talking TRAINING METHOD and SKILLS.

Training methods and skills as measured by what standard?

Not as a "measurement" as a description or definition. The people asking the question aren't "measuring" MMA vs. TMA, they're asking "is MMA a 'real' martial art" (as can be seen by following posts in this and its sister thread).

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that people who compete on a professional level in MMA are not usually professionals, and that the sport is not geared around "professional" competition?

You specifically wrote, "They ask why there aren't any traditional martial artists in professional MMA matches." I was pointing out that this assumption is flat out wrong. There are many "professional MMA" competitors who have a TMA background, many of whom continue their TMA training.

Did I ever say that TMA guys cannot / do not compete in this setting? Do you disagree that most practitioners of non-sportive arts do not train for these settings?

"They ask why there aren't any traditional martial artists in professional MMA matches." - Argus

I'm commenting on the OP's original points. I don't know what you're on about here, or how you're interpreting my points.

I'm "interpreting" them as you wrote them.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

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:

I usually give myself the weekend off from the Internet to spend time with my family, catch up on chores, and just generally, well, not be on the 'net. Additionally, the HD on my Laptop crashed Friday and I haven't really wanted to work on it.

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").

I don't know how he knows it, but I know it because I've got a number of friends who do MMA who also gotten them in "informal" fights outside of the training or competition environment. Some of them involved multiples. These MMA "sport fighters" all managed to prevail. That's how I know.

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.

I generally agree here.

Running has been a fundamental martial skill for millenia, you realize...

In fact, most ancient armies had men (or boys) specifically designated as "runners," usually to deliver messages. Everyone remember why we have marathons?

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.

The modern Olympics were 99% based around martially relevant skills from boxing to wrestling. Heck the whole point behind the 1912 Pentathlon was martial skill of a soldier trapped behind enemy lines.

I'm one of those guys mad that they are wanting to remove wrestling from the Olympics and think that they should bring back Singlestick.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

With respect, I'm going to disagree with you on several points:



MMA is not a martial art, despite the use of the term in the phrase. It is a martial sport. Whether we're discussing MMA or TKD they are both sport because they both operate in an artificial, controlled environment and use a rule set. It is not the same as a martial art, and by martial art I'm not referring to the sport version of said art.

Right on! Just like Kendo!

...oh, wait...

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Originally Posted by Chris Parker
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.You know that there are no analogies in the passage you quoted. Right?

Regarding the question, "Is MMA a Martial Art, a Martial Sport or something else?" I would say that it really depends upon how you define each of the terms.

In my OPINION, MMA is rapidly becoming a complete martial art. I have a broad personal definition of the term martial art. I think it's useful to distinguish between arts that have a competitive element, such as Judo, TKD, BJJ, Kyokushin Karate, and those that do not, such as WC. However, in my opinion, this distinction does not make one a martial art more than another.

What does make something a martial art, in my opinion, is distinctive technique so that you can look at people practicing the art and say, "Hey, that's Kung Fu, or more specifically, that's Bagua!" Martial Arts also tend to have a culture specific to the art. And really, the final distinction I can think of off the top of my head is that there are people within the art teaching THAT art. Come learn Wing Chun from me.

10 years ago, MMA did not have those things. Now? I think it does.

Ultimately, though, the hazard of threads like this is that everyone has a different definition of the term, and so I'm sure I'm "wrong" from someone else's point of view. But that's okay by me because this is largely an academic distinction and not one that keeps me from being punched in the face or armbarred.

How old is Bas' self defense and bar fighting tape?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

By definition, MMA is not a martial art. It is a combination of two or more artsin a competitive sporting format.

Just like Judo, Aikido, Hapkido, and a bunch of others are the combination of more than one prior martial art, and all with a sporting, competitive outlet.

Now, if someone combines arts, names it, establishes standards for that particular combination and sets up one or more schools to teach that specific, predefined and standardized combination, then it can certainly be considered a new martial art (Kajukenbo, for example).

Actually, that's been true of most MMA for over a decade now at least. There is a consistent methodology to training, a consistent naming convention of techniques, a fairly consistent curriculum, and a method of establishing "rank" or "status" within the community which is consistent with many martial arts established of antiquity ranging from Oriental examples through Occidental examples including Savate, Boxing, early Judo, several early styles of Kenjutsu, lots of different Silat styles, and no few styles of Kungfu. For many arts of antiquity, there were no "ranks" but what you could claim for yourself, defend against challengers, or when your Master deigned to accredit you as a Master (Maestro, Mestre, whatever). And even then there was a never-ending list of squabbles about who was or was not a Master and what weapons (or unarmed skills) sucked or did not. George Silver, in the 16th Century, bemoaned how there was a constant crop of people calling themselves "Masters" who didn't deserve the title and further bemoaned the rise of the Rapier, which, to him, as a thoroughly un-British (and somewhat pantie-wasted) weapon. There were multiple challenge matches between French Savate and British Boxing in the mid-to-late 19th Century. There were constant challenge matches between European wrestling (particularly Catch-as-Catch-Can) and JuJitsu in the early 20th Century, as well as a somewhat amusing series of press battles pitting western Boxing against Jujitsu in the pages of popular men's magazines.

There is a vast difference between "MMA is not a martial art" and "MMA competitors are not martial artists". In fact, I believe if you look back a few posts you'll fine one that shows quite definitively that most MMA competitors are TMAists.

I don't have any solid information on "most" but it's without doubt that many are.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Zero]

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

Interesting Superkizuna, were you in actual combat ops while on tour, and more importantly were you involved in actual H2H combat with the enemy? What were the conflicts/wars you refer to?

When you fought for your life in the street, were these self defense scenarios where you were jumped and had to react or were these monkey dances that escalated or otherwise an arranged street fight?

Would love to know.

I have trained with and competed against military and LEOs and have found them no different in ability than anyone else in the ring (ok, that's just full contact tournament and not street). In my experience, from training with military and having had a few street fights myself when younger (not proud of that now but I had no issue with engaging in unproductive violence when I was younger), I would not necessarily put a veteran over another well trained martial artist in a street situation. Perhaps a LEO with good fight skills has an edge due to their day-to-day experience... My long time sensei was a cop who worked the beat and the cells and had very good advice and was not someone to mess with. Although when you are wearing the uniform and are holstered you are coming from things a bit different.

You are right though that when you are fighting outside of a sanctioned event that things do get put in perspective.

What is a musician doing training for street fights? If you want to effectively defend yourself in an SD scenario there is better focused specific SD training you can do. Or are you generally wanting to participate in unsanctioned street fights on a regular basis? In which case you can probably kiss goodbye to any music career you were dreaming of (although it may get you gangsta cred, but that's kinda done its thing now).

 

[Argus]

Apparently there was more than a little bit of formality to those matches.

I wasn't really referring to any formality surrounding the match itself. The OP was talking about something he termed "formal and informal combat." So we're talking about the action of combat itself. The OP uses as his example "MMA" and "TMA," and equates TMA's solely with sport / point fighting tournaments, as if those things define the arts. By TMA tournaments being more "formal," I assume that he means a stricter rule set, or resetting after a point is made, etc. He may also be referring to participants practicing their style more "by the book," and being somewhat more "rigid" in their approach to fighting, though I'm only speculating.

In any case, all of the above are modern phenomenon for most traditional martial arts - excluding, of course, western arts, many of which did derive from sport, and particular wrestling sports such as shuai jiao or sumo. I would also include here particular modern arts reinvented from older arts for a sportive emphasis, such as judo or kendo for example. Now, having hopefully covered my butt sufficiently, most older, traditional martial arts do not derive from sport / tournament matches, contrary to what the OP's impression seems to be.

Now, describe to me how combat that takes place in MMA is any less "formal" (as in rigid, controlled, or rule-bound) than a roof top fight, or some such duel, and you might have a relevant point.

Do you understand what "Professional" means? If you get paid to do martial arts then you're a professional martial artist. This ranges from teaching martial arts to performing them. The guy who owns the TKD Dojang down on the corner is every bit as much a "Professional Martial Artist" as is Anderson Silva.

World English Dictionary

professional (prəˈfɛʃən ə l)
— adj
1.	of, relating to, suitable for, or engaged in as a profession
2.	engaging in an activity for gain or as a means of livelihood
3.	a. extremely competent in a job, etc
	b. (of a piece of work or anything performed) produced with competence or skill
4.	undertaken or performed for gain or by people who are paid
— n
5.	a person who belongs to or engages in one of the professions
6.	a person who engages for his livelihood in some activity also pursued by amateurs
7.	a person who engages in an activity with great competence
8.	an expert player of a game who gives instruction, esp to members of a club by whom he is hired

Language is dependent on context. Words carry multiple meanings, depending on their use, and the intent of the speaker. Now, I kind of expect people to try to understand my intended meaning, or overall point, as opposed to just nit-picking in order to criticize, or completely circumventing my intent and pointing at irrelevant examples.

However, regardless of your definition, as I believe I also used professional in the sense of someone paid for a profession, your point is still irrelevant. A Professional Mixed Martial Artist is paid to fight in Mixed Martial Arts matches. A Professional Martial Arts instructor is paid to instruct Martial Arts, not to fight in Mixed Martial Arts matches. Moreover, it should at least be recognized that Martial Arts has not always been as commercialized as it is today. While there certainly were those whose main occupation was teaching or practicing martial arts throughout history, there were also many for whom practicing and teaching martial arts was not a profession, and this remains the case even to this day.

I think your idea of "formal" and "informal" may need some tweaking. Particularly in antiquity, there were many instances where joining armies on the battlefield was much more "formal" than you seem to give them credit for.

This is a bit subjective, but you may make a valid point here. Military training and practice is by definition what you might call "formal." At least in practice, if not application, doing things in a disciplined, "by the book" manner is important. And I am aware that in antiquity, battles were sometimes a very formal occasion. But, if we are talking about individual combat itself, that is somewhat outside the relm of formality surrounding a particular engagement.

Not as a "measurement" as a description or definition. The people asking the question aren't "measuring" MMA vs. TMA, they're asking "is MMA a 'real' martial art" (as can be seen by following posts in this and its sister thread).

Actually the OP was trying to equate MMA to martial arts as a whole. He asserted that it was no different than Traditional Martial Arts, except that it is more "informal," and was contrasting MMA competitions to tournament competitions.

You specifically wrote, "They ask why there aren't any traditional martial artists in professional MMA matches." I was pointing out that this assumption is flat out wrong. There are many "professional MMA" competitors who have a TMA background, many of whom continue their TMA training.

It is irrelevant if a professional MMA competitor is from a TMA background or not, or whether they continue their TMA training. They may even use some of their TMA training in MMA, yes. But their training and fighting methodology is unique to MMA. In essence, what they do in the ring is usually better described as "Mixed Martial Arts." And yes, I do realize there are exceptions to that rule, such as the Gracies, but many have pointed out already that, as MMA evolves, it seems to be developing more and more its own distinct methodology and repertoire which best suit it. I tend to agree with those who say that it might one day evolve into a distinct martial art in its own right.

 

[Zero]

Where are you Superkizuna?! Sorry, terribly mundane day in the office today...I need some real-life, life and death combat H2H scenarios to do what the cheap coffee in the canteen can't.

 

[superkizuna]

There are a few shows in asia that strict disciplines, uniform and all, fight it out with no pads. I don't know the names but if u do pm me.

Iklawson,

I do not disagree with any of your points, but you could be more respectful in making them.

I fully expected someone to tear that post apart. No, I did not present a complete picture, nor do I even have a complete understanding of MMA. I'm admittedly somewhat ignorant of it. Your historical points, such as duels, and special individuals, are also things that I am aware of.

I was just trying to bring up a few points that I think are often overlooked when comparing traditional and sportive arts. Sure, there are amateur MMA practitioners. But that's not usually what people are concerned about when we get into the "traditional vs MMA" debate. They ask why there aren't any traditional martial artists in professional MMA matches.

The fact is, whether you're training to preserve an art, for sport, for the military, self defense, for duels, or what have you, your approach is going to be different. You will have different goals, and different training methods. And you will be training for something different in each case. That is the only point I was trying to make.

 

[superkizuna]

I wont leave u man. How can I help u?

Where are you Superkizuna?! Sorry, terribly mundane day in the office today...I need some real-life, life and death combat H2H scenarios to do what the cheap coffee in the canteen can't.

 

[Zero]

I wont leave u man. How can I help u?

Too late but thanks man, I needed war stories to get me through a terribly boring day in the office the other week, but today is all good (I managed to sneak off to the gym for lunch).