I guess that comment was meant to be the flippant, "if we must accept it, then this is how we should accept it". Didn't quite come across the way I intended *grumble*
it may be varied and broken into GNP or CNL ect ect. but it won't be mcdojoized, it would be almost impossible to mcdojoize something like that.
I do watch UFC fights occasionally, though I find Pride far more interesting. However I just haven't noticed this in the more recent matches.
It's already a style (maybe system is a better word, everyone has their own personal style) in the same way that boxing, wrestling, or any sport is a style. As long as the goal is success in competition, people are going to train in a way that gives results. This leads people to train in similar ways and use similar techniques. Sure, different boxing coaches may teach their students to fight differently but all the same basic elements are there. It's the same with mma. The thing that keeps an art from being "mcdojoized" is using competition as a gauge of skill (not necessarily competition in front of a crowd, even in the normal classes) instead of rank. BJJ survived mcdojoism for a long time, but now rank in bjj will start to mean less and less as belts become easier to get. As long as mma doesn't become standardized and adopt a belt system it should be fine... though no doubt a lot of schools will adopt "mma" programs to attract students.
Yeah, i think competition is protecting MMA from becoming garbage. I dont think there is a ''style'' because there is a kyokushinkai mma school in edmonton. Its quite good to.
Pardon? I don't understand. Edit: Ah, ok, are you saying that MMA is not becoming "crystalized" into a single style because other schools of MA (such as karate) are adopting it?
I think if it develops far enough you'll see the introduction of more and more "traditional" techniques from other arts as people understand how to apply stuff. Look at how a lot of judo-type takedowns are being introduced because everyone understands how to defend a shoot, or the spinning back kick is used more and more. Personally I think it has become a "style" in itself specifically developed for the sporting context it is used in. Most MMA schools tend to teach the same techniques in more or less the same manner, and if one sees a particular technique used effectively they'll adopt it and teach it themselves, even if they do have a preference towards a certain aspect of the game! Historically this is no different to how many martial arts have developed into a particular "style" Take Judo as an example. It has developed constantly over the years and players have actively trained in other arts to improve their game (eg Sambo, BJJ etc etc) but they are still doing Judo even if they combine other aspects. I see MMA as no different. You can study BJJ & MT (and plenty of others) separately and compete in MMA, or you can simply learn MMA (which although it combines aspects of the others is not necessarily the same thing) does that make any sense?
No, it's the other way round. More and more arts are starting to be integrated with MMA. Boxing and wrestling have been big parts of MMA training for ages now.
I dont see MMA as a style as it's been said earlier, it's a competitive martial art. That to me makes it a sport not a style. Sure their are many ways in which people can play a sport and thats where style comes into it. IMO MMA is not in danger of becoming a style in itself just a sport which has different rules for different events and fighters who have differents styles within those rules.
But what about Boxing? It is both a sport and a "style"/"art (call it what you will. Individuals have their own style and preferences but you can still learn the art of boxing without fighting under its ruleset. Amateur boxing has different rules to Professional boxing but that doesn't mean the techniques taught within the "style"/art in itself are any different Surely therefore by that definition MMA is also a style/art in itself? Fighters may have different styles and preferences within those rules, but they still learn all the same techniques as the next person. Why is MMA become a "style" in itself a "danger"?
Look at football the sports played at different levels junior, amateur, pro. Its a ball game so that makes it a style of playing with your balls ??? Is football a style or sport??? Personally I would say football is a sport but yes it is style of sorts just like MMA is a combat sport which has its cousins ie sports TKD etc making it what some could call a style. What is the point of all this anyway??? I dunno what the thread title is trying to get at. This really is a bit of a silly discussion
I think the question is "is MMA losing its 'whatever works' versitility and (in some schools at least) becoming solidified as BJJ+MT". As far as I understand it, MMA is often thought of as a "filtering" process, whereby the techniques that don't work form the world of martila arts are dropped from training to allow the fighter to narrow their focus onto the techniques that work well in the ring. This is fundementally a "pruning" process, chopping back and disposing of techniques. This process has revealed that muay thai fighters tend to do best at striking in the ring and BJJers have been most successful at grappling, so everything else has been dropped. Now we seem to be seeing a realisation that this has happened and people are concentrating on broadening their horizons again to get the edge over people who've only trained in MMA-do (BJJ+MT). An advantage of all this malarkey for those of us in the TMAs is that TMA instructors have had to broaden their horizons a little too and look at the all-round effectiveness of their art rather than just focusing on striking, grappling or kicking in isolation.
Couldn't disagree with you there...Football is definitely a sport. ...but then again I wasn't aware that it had a combative martial art element so not a very good analogy really p.s I'm not quite sure where this is going anymore either...
MMA is primarily based on the concept that you want to be good at all "ranges" of combat from kicking... punching... clinching... and ground. If someone's "MMA" training is just in ground range, then it really isn't MMA, it is just ground fighting. On the other hand, if someone's training is the combination of Muay Thai for kicking/punching/clinching, and Wrestling for clinching/ground... then that could be called MMA (Mixed Martial Arts). As long as people are free to choose what "styles" they want to train in for all the ranges, then MMA can stay a generic term for a type of martial arts training whose primary concept is to be good at all ranges. If MMA is instead dictated by the rules of the game, then it should not be called MMA but should have some kind of qualifier like "UFC MMA" or "K1 MMA". The real danger I see is that people will change the concept of MMA from proficiency at all ranges to some kind of limited cross-training. For instance, I might practice karate five times a week but only once a month work on ground fighting/Judo. That is cross-training, that does not make my school MMA because I'm really not putting in the training to be good at all ranges, it is still primarily karate whose concept might revolve around "one strike ends the fight" rather than MMA's concept of "be good at all ranges". IMHO.
well it is a filter process, and at the moment, heavy focus is placed on whats working at the moment.
What about someone who goes to a boxing gym but never competes... how is that any different than someone who trains in tae kwon do? How is a competitive, amateur boxer different from a karate-ka who spars in sport karate tournaments?
I think the reason MMA is still "mixed" at the moment is because it is, as an art in its own right, quite young, and it's still going through a filtering process of finding out what works best under MMA rules. As it rises in popularity, and the range of effective techniques becomes more standardised, I imagine you will see more clubs with one instructor teaching MMA as a style in itself.
