Why does MMA count as an own martial art now ?

[TSDTexan]

Johnny English said: "but BEATING somebody with your fists in to the face while he is laying below you, this is a NO go and counts as UN-SPORTSMAN behaviour, in my personal opinion"

Johnny, your values of what determines "sportsman-like behaviour" is quite subjective. Let's say we were to travel back to the Roman Colosseum anytime between AD. 80, and AD 550, we would find men fighting to the death against other men and animals.

What they considered sport is radically different than what you think sport means today.

Where did the word even come from?

There is exceptionally strong evidence that shows SPOR came from SPQR.

SPQR is an acrostic of initials from a Latin phrase, Senatus Populusque Romanus
("The Senate and the People of Rome")
It is found all over Rome, on its buildings, and it was commonly tattooed upon slaves that were sold into gladiating. As well as those who were locked into lifelong contracts with the Roman Government.
Gladiating:
This Sport was created for the entertainment of the ruling classes, and the common people. And beating an opponent on the ground until he was incapacitated, or dead was considered proper sport (service to the senate and to the people of Rome) in that day.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The only thing that I don't like about MMA are the people who say that MMA is better than the other martial arts. The fact that MMA works is because they are using actual applications of bits and pieces of other martial arts styles. The name MMA says it all. Mixed Martial Arts. If martial arts didn't work then the sport wouldn't be called MMA.

In my opinion I think MMA is gentle in comparison to some of the martial arts out there. The fact that you have an opportunity to submit without being beat to a pulp is awesome. This isn't true with all fighting styles. Muay Thai, Karate, Lei Tai fights don't have submission. You either take a beating or give a beating. Boxing is the same way. There's no tapping out. I don't think I've hear MMA being declared as it's own martial arts. I've been to an MMA gym before and the ones I've seen always had instructors that were trained in one or two disciplines completely but have added other elements that to their fighting style not for the purpose of creating a different martial art but for the purpose in increasing the skill fighting level. In most cases MMA is very practical and easy to learn and apply. Those who have taken Karate, Kung Fu, or some other form based martial art fighting system will tell you that doing the form is one thing but actually using those techniques in a real fight situation against another experienced fighter is not easy. You have to really understand your martial arts that you are training in before you are actually able to use it in a real fight situation. Application demos are not realistic and were never meant to show you how to use it in a real fight.

 

[Dinkydoo]

Why does MMA "count" as its own martial art.....I'm not sure many people go around claiming MMA is a style within its own right, I haven't really heard anyone talk about it like that, but would they be wrong....? I'm not sure. There are massive similarities between many styles of martial arts - for instance judo and bjj, kickboxing and muay thai... - because, amongst other things, there is simply a finite number of techniques that the human body can use. MMA is generally thought of as the combination of standup striking with ground fighting and techniques are generally taken from boxing, muay thai, kickboxing, judo, bjj and wrestling to create very rounded fighters who can fight standing up and on the ground within the given ruleset. There are also influences from Karate and Kung Fu styles. Some gyms train each of these components in isolation (as muay thai, as judo...etc) but others focus less on the stylistic influences and simply seperate their curriculum into standup and grappling - not limiting themselves to a particular type of striking..etc Add to that, that there are now techniques used in MMA that aren't really found in any other art that involve kicking upwards when lying on your back and incoprorating the cage into jumping kicks. There might be more reasons as to why someone would disagree with calling MMA a style within its own right, but in my opinion, those people are just coming across as a bit pretentious. MMA has plenty of elements that are relatively unique to the sport that if people want to call it a style, they can.

As for the comment about beating people up whilst they are on the ground; the same rules regarding intelligently defending yourself apply standing up and on the ground...I think most people would have something to say to the referee if standing up, 3 or 4 punches getting through your guard resulted in a TKO ruling - you need to give the fighter a chance to get themselves back into the fight. To someone who already has prejudices about the sport, this might look barbaric, but it isn't.

 

[Hyoho]

It is true that Martial Arts in Japan have survived through Meiji Era using the values of an artistic pursuit. Then banned by McArthur in his letter to Prime Minister Yoshida they were reinstituted as "a sportlike educational activity". You see few people in Japan that do things like this for self-defense. To me this is Western idea that can also make a bit of cash.

Normally its all sport and competitions apart from Kobudo.

The Western concept of, "What is MA" seems to vastly differ from what some people write on here compared with Asia.

 

[JohnnyEnglish]

Johnny English said: "but BEATING somebody with your fists in to the face while he is laying below you, this is a NO go and counts as UN-SPORTSMAN behaviour, in my personal opinion"

Johnny, your values of what determines "sportsman-like behaviour" is quite subjective. Let's say we were to travel back to the Roman Colosseum anytime between AD. 80, and AD 550, we would find men fighting to the death against other men and animals.

What they considered sport is radically different than what you think sport means today.

Where did the word even come from?

There is exceptionally strong evidence that shows SPOR came from SPQR.

View attachment 19424

SPQR is an acrostic of initials from a Latin phrase, Senatus Populusque Romanus
("The Senate and the People of Rome")
It is found all over Rome, on its buildings, and it was commonly tattooed upon slaves that were sold into gladiating. As well as those who were locked into lifelong contracts with the Roman Government.
Gladiating:
This Sport was created for the entertainment of the ruling classes, and the common people. And beating an opponent on the ground until he was incapacitated, or dead was considered proper sport (service to the senate and to the people of Rome) in that day.

View attachment 19423

Correct, my opinion is very subjective, I've never said it would be objective !

MMA is gentle yes, compared to for example ancient pankration. But this is not the point I wanted to discuss.

However, have a nice day, I am feed up repeating myself.

 

[Hyoho]

When you compare say sportlike Budo with Classical Budo there is nothing nice about it. You hit a guy in the head on the floor to sustain damage to the front. At the same time the head striking the ground sustains damage. We wear body armour and strike protective areas. Whereas classical looks to injure people where they are not protected. It's all very valid stuff.

The thing is how much of this are you going to allow into a new made up sport to keep people happy? Like most things they always look for the sensation value and sadly a lot seem to revel other peoples misfortune. The media is absolutely full of other peoples screw ups and losses be it in the ring or in real life.

 

[hoshin1600]

You have mentioned pankration a few times now, while I am no expert here, what I have learnt about it gives me the indication you know less about pankration then you do MMA. Pankration is not gladiator games. It was a common sport. It is known Alexander the great was a big fan and his soldiers would regularly compete with each other when they were not at war. It was good exersize. I hardly think any commander would want his soldiers beat up and to your thinking killed. By the time Alexander reached India he wouldn't have had any soldiers left.
Modern pankration is a modern construct of other existing MA.

 

[TSDTexan]

You have mentioned pankration a few times now, while I am no expert here, what I have learnt about it gives me the indication you know less about pankration then you do MMA. Pankration is not gladiator games. It was a common sport. It is known Alexander the great was a big fan and his soldiers would regularly compete with each other when they were not at war. It was good exersize. I hardly think any commander would want his soldiers beat up and to your thinking killed. By the time Alexander reached India he wouldn't have had any soldiers left.
Modern pankration is a modern construct of other existing MA.

To whom are you addressing this comment?
If it was addressed to myself, please let me say this:

While I made a comment about gladiators, I have never posted anything about Pankration, on this board, or anywhere on the internet.

Frankly, I know nothing about this martial art, other then some say it was a European MA.

 

[TSDTexan]

You might want to work on your communication skills in that case.

So you think that MMA is not a martial art because the techniques come from other arts? You do realize that the techniques in TKD come from earlier martial arts as well, right? Does that mean you also don't consider TKD to be a martial art either?



Are you familiar with the phrase "argument by assertion"? You keep asserting that knocking someone out on their feet is somehow more sporting/fair/morally superior/whatever to knocking them out on the ground. You have yet to explain why. If you want your opinions to be taken seriously, it helps to explain why you believe them to be true.



Once again, assertion without any support. Even if you don't like striking on the ground, can you explain why its presence makes a competition in any way less "fair" or "real"?



If you keep making poorly thought out claims and refusing to supply any backing for your statements, then you will indeed eventually be thought of as a troll and ignored. In the meantime, we're all here because we like to talk about the martial arts. If you post on a topic that people are interested in, they are likely to respond.

Something Johnny English is missing is that a pure art like
Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu had a library of like 3800 techniques, armed unarmed, standing and ground fighting.

Out Of this many other arts

 

[Hanzou]

This had to be one of the weirdest threads I've ever read. If someone is attacking you and you knock them down, you'd let them get up again to attack you some more?

What?

 

[tigercrane]

I am bit late to this thread, but I'd have to side with Johnny in my detesting of MMA.
All I see in MMA is bunch of techniques and brute force applications and not much else. Efficient? Sure it is, but this is not the point.

So what sets TMA apart from MMA?

IMO, MMA is not an art because there is so much more to any traditional martial art than just someone's ability to maim and gore one's opponent. Martial art teaches such concepts as humility, enlightenment and philosophy, things that transcend physical combat.

MMA is anything but any of that.

 

[Steve]

I am bit late to this thread, but I'd have to side with Johnny in my detesting of MMA.
All I see in MMA is bunch of techniques and brute force applications and not much else. Efficient? Sure it is, but this is not the point.

So what sets TMA apart from MMA?

IMO, MMA is not an art because there is so much more to any traditional martial art than just someone's ability to maim and gore one's opponent. Martial art teaches such concepts as humility, enlightenment and philosophy, things that transcend physical combat.

MMA is anything but any of that.

I think a lot of this is just youth and ignorance, but I have to say, I'm pretty tired of the "TMA teaches humility" myth.

You mention learning humility. Do you believe you are humble? How is bashing people who train in MMA a demonstration of humility? Seems like the opposite to me. I

 

[Tez3]

I am bit late to this thread, but I'd have to side with Johnny in my detesting of MMA.
All I see in MMA is bunch of techniques and brute force applications and not much else. Efficient? Sure it is, but this is not the point.

So what sets TMA apart from MMA?

IMO, MMA is not an art because there is so much more to any traditional martial art than just someone's ability to maim and gore one's opponent. Martial art teaches such concepts as humility, enlightenment and philosophy, things that transcend physical combat.

MMA is anything but any of that.

What is the point then? JohnnyEnglish is against it because he feels one should not hit people on the ground...ignoring the fact that in TMAs that is what is taught...how to end a fight in any manner that is efficient.
In MMA competition one doesn't aim to maim and as fighters have no horns they certainly can't 'gore' people. In fact they don't aim to damage at all they aim to win, the damage is certainly no worst than any full contact karate I have seen or taken part in and probably less than boxing when they will continue after a KO if the fighter can 'beat' the count but not necessarily be compos mentis
I have just read a very good post which I shall attempt to paraphrase...that if one wants things such as humility enlightenment etc etc one should look to a psychologist or perhaps religious leader, martial arts is about defending ones self/fighting, that one learns anything that improves one life other than that it's fortuitous but not the point of martial arts.
Detest MMA by all means, your right but do it after having an open mind as to what it actually is not what you think it is.

 

[tigercrane]

I think a lot of this is just youth and ignorance, but I have to say, I'm pretty tired of the "TMA teaches humility" myth.

You mention learning humility. Do you believe you are humble? How is bashing people who train in MMA a demonstration of humility? Seems like the opposite to me. I

First off, thanks for labeling me Ignorant & Youthful The two qualities I do not possess, but I'd like to get my youth back very much!

Next, if you are tired of something, please avail yourself to some rest - you probably need it after reading many opinions and not agreeing with them.

Third, do you know how to compare and contrast? If so, please contrast what you re-phrased as my statement "TMA teaches humility" with something like "MMA teaches you the warrior way or how to bust someone's nuts and such..anything, whatever deserves to be considered."

Forth, to answer your question: Yes, I am trying very hard to be humble in daily life matters. Are you saying that to be humble is to not have an opinion? Wow!

Lastly, how is stating the truth considered bashing? If you want to learn to break someone's skull, MMA is a perfect tool. I give MMA full credit for efficiency, as I said already. It is what it is - amalgamation of techniques and applications from various arts if you will, nothing more and nothing less.

Please, please enlighten me on what else I could learn from MMA besides nut busting, joint locking and arm breaking, etc.? I am open to learning.

 

[TSDTexan]

Something Johnny English is missing is that a pure art like
Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu had a library of like 3800 techniques, armed unarmed, standing and ground fighting.

Out Of this many other arts

Silly phone never posts these right.

So JohnnyEnglish doesn't consider MMA to be a "real martial art", but if you look at Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu which had a MASSIVE library of techniques, a system of standup fighting, and ground fighting, and kneeling fighting... armed and unarmed fighting.... You could go to Daitō and see this "traditional" martial art almost perfectly mirrors the curriculum of MMA.

Aiki spawned Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu which is the artform that led to creation of arts like Sumo wrestling, Akido, Judo, many Japanese systems of Jujutsu, Kendo, Hapkido, Shorinji Kenpo (hybrid), Icho-ryū and Hakko-ryu draw many techniques from Daitō-ryū jujutsu, and even Brazilian Jiu Jitsu

Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu has everything you would need in an MMA cage... punches, kicks, takedowns, throws, standup fighting and groundfighting.

Why does this system get accepted as a valid martial art?
but MMA doesn't?

The 100-year-old art of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu has punches and kicks. It is a traditional martial art. It may not have every single technique found in an MMA school, but odds are it can do just fine in an MMA rules fight.

In the 1920, Carlos Gracie took out an ad in the paper saying "If you want to get your face beaten and well-smashed, and if you want broken arms, look for me at this address."

Carlos was taught jujutsu by Maeda, who also spiced it up with a few things Maeda learned from "catch" wrestlers (ones that he had dueled in England.)

Helio Gracie set the record straight, that Maeda did not teach any striking to the Gracies.

It was a little known fact that Maeda was a jujutsu-ka that had switched over to Kodokan Judo.

He said that Maeda was teaching not Kodokan Judo, but a Classical Jujutsu [often called "Kozen or Kosen Judo", by the Judoka, which is regular judo + higher teaching that incorporated from material in other branches of jujutsu, including techniques that were used in Ne-waza]

So clearly either Carlos Gracie was already a striker when he learned Jujutsu from Maeda, or learned striking after the fact.
Helio Gracie Sets Record Straight Maeda Was Teaching us Jiu-Jitsu Not Judo Bjj Eastern Europe

None the less, for over 95 years, since 1920 BJJ has been a grappling and striking art... and it definitely is a traditional martial art.

It is worth noting here that while the name ‘judo’ has become the accepted term for Dr. Jigoro Kano’s martial art, at the time many still referred to the style as ‘ju-jitsu’, or even ‘Kano ju-jitsu’. Maeda, like so many others, had come Kano's school having studied other ju-jitsu ryu previously.

While the more common Romanization is ‘jujitsu’, in Brazil the spelling ‘jiu-jitsu’ stuck, and has retained that extra ‘i’ ever since.

 

[Hyoho]

In all my years I see little humility and enlightenment in any of it. Quite sad really. In moving to Japan many years ago I had expected to find a more philosophical approach. In Japan we call it Budo Seishin. With what I have experienced over the years it's quite clear to me that if you want to incorporate these attributes along with honesty obligation to ones teacher you have to put it in there yourself. Fighters are born to it. One simply channels that ability. You are not going to make fighter out of a nerd either. So we all practice for varying reasons. With MMA it all boils down to money anyway. They get paid for doing this stuff and have an audience.

 

[Tez3]

First off, thanks for labeling me Ignorant & Youthful The two qualities I do not possess, but I'd like to get my youth back very much!

Next, if you are tired of something, please avail yourself to some rest - you probably need it after reading many opinions and not agreeing with them.

Third, do you know how to compare and contrast? If so, please contrast what you re-phrased as my statement "TMA teaches humility" with something like "MMA teaches you the warrior way or how to bust someone's nuts and such..anything, whatever deserves to be considered."

Forth, to answer your question: Yes, I am trying very hard to be humble in daily life matters. Are you saying that to be humble is to not have an opinion? Wow!

Lastly, how is stating the truth considered bashing? If you want to learn to break someone's skull, MMA is a perfect tool. I give MMA full credit for efficiency, as I said already. It is what it is - amalgamation of techniques and applications from various arts if you will, nothing more and nothing less.

Please, please enlighten me on what else I could learn from MMA besides nut busting, joint locking and arm breaking, etc.? I am open to learning.

Are you replying to anyone in particular or just having a go at anyone who reads it?

Breaking skulls? I would suggest MMA isn't the style you want for that, I'd say those that break boards could probably do a very good job of breaking skulls. 'Nut busting'... I can assure you that the genitals are definitely off target and striking there is against the rules. Really, there are a huge amount of rules in MMA that makes it what it is...a competitive style of fighting for competition.

One thing that is being overlooked of course is that many MMAers are also TMAers.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

It was a little known fact that Maeda was a jujutsu-ka that had switched over to Kodokan Judo.

He said that Maeda was teaching not Kodokan Judo, but a Classical Jujutsu [often called "Kozen or Kosen Judo", by the Judoka, which is regular judo + higher teaching that incorporated from material in other branches of jujutsu, including techniques that were used in Ne-waza]

So clearly either Carlos Gracie was already a striker when he learned Jujutsu from Maeda, or learned striking after the fact.
Helio Gracie Sets Record Straight Maeda Was Teaching us Jiu-Jitsu Not Judo Bjj Eastern Europe

Yeah ... with all due respect to Helio, his understanding of Japanese judo/jujutsu history was shaky at best, totally wrong at worst. In addition, he was a consummate spin artist who changed his accounts of BJJ history more than once depending on what suited him at the moment.

As far as the striking goes, that was something the Gracies picked up from years of brawling rather than from Maeda. With just a few exceptions, the striking in BJJ is not tremendously systemized and is more focused on setting up grappling moves than on doing major damage.

 

[Tez3]

They get paid for doing this stuff

Many fighters don't get paid, they compete because they enjoy it. We have basically three sets of rules, amateur, semi pro and pro. You can chose to fight in any of these sets. pro rules most likely you will get a purse perhaps only a couple of hundred pounds but by no means a fortune. Semi pros and amateurs may get expenses and a ticket deal but not always. A lot of people train MMA and don't fight, they may take part in interclubs if they fancy testing their skills.
The problem is I think many people judge MMA only form the UFC and other big promotions, they don't understand there are many people who don't fight on this and actually have no wish to, they regard their MMA as a sport/hobby to be followed. We have many people who train MMA, professional types, doctors, police officers, door supervisors etc they are often martial artists who come along to widen their skill base or who just enjoy the training.
This is why I say look at MMA properly before judging, the chances are it's not what you think it is.

 

[tigercrane]

What is the point then? JohnnyEnglish is against it because he feels one should not hit people on the ground...ignoring the fact that in TMAs that is what is taught...how to end a fight in any manner that is efficient.
In MMA competition one doesn't aim to maim and as fighters have no horns they certainly can't 'gore' people. In fact they don't aim to damage at all they aim to win, the damage is certainly no worst than any full contact karate I have seen or taken part in and probably less than boxing when they will continue after a KO if the fighter can 'beat' the count but not necessarily be compos mentis
I have just read a very good post which I shall attempt to paraphrase...that if one wants things such as humility enlightenment etc etc one should look to a psychologist or perhaps religious leader, martial arts is about defending ones self/fighting, that one learns anything that improves one life other than that it's fortuitous but not the point of martial arts.
Detest MMA by all means, your right but do it after having an open mind as to what it actually is not what you think it is.

I see your points. Notwithstanding the rules of MMA fights, the actual contenders can harm, maim and gore each other if will be. They are skilled enough to do so, no doubt about that. The question remains about why this is called MA to begin with. Is MMA for sports, show or is it for actual combat or both?

Moreover, to keep an open mind about this as you said would be to look at opposing opinions, which is what we are doing here.

In regards to you comment, quote: "I have just read a very good post which I shall attempt to paraphrase...that if one wants things such as humility enlightenment etc etc one should look to a psychologist or perhaps religious leader, martial arts is about defending ones self/fighting..."

I'd like to ask you this: Why is it that martial arts that evolved all over Asia and even Medieval Europe had religion and philosophy so closely integrated into it that it became indelible part of martial arts way. In Japan, it is Zen Buddism, in China it is Buddism and Taosim, etc. Some of the greatest martial artists of all times have written countless books on the philosophy.

Martial Arts are for defense, offense and then some.

Why did they do it if these masters could simply teach their disciples how to kick some *** and be done with it? Why bother with philosophy of movement or the religious teachings?

So, thousands of years of martial arts evolution did teach humankind nothing until now.

The answer is simple: There is much more to any martial art than a simple *** kicking.

To keep an open mind about learning, I'd like to ask you to tell me what I could glean from MMA's perspective to make me better understand the foundation it sits on.