What is MMA?

Yes....so many of the MMA threads and responses advocate FOR MMA but I don't a lot of information CONCERNING MMA. The result is that its really hard to know about the actually community itself, know what I mean?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Oh c'mon, Simon....don't be coy. You know exactly what I mean. Other than the rah-rah that MMA advocates go into when marketing their activity, how much does the MA world really know about MMA? Its not like a lot of people know who the corporations or investors are behind the scenes. Does anybody know who gets the revenues from the televiosion rights and the advertising? Its like....say...the Evening National news. We all know the face and name of the reporter. How many can name the Producers responsible for content? See what I mean?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Seriously?

It's the part I pay attention to the least but watching one UFC broadcast tells you a lot of what you need to know. A quick web search clears things up even faster.

Zuffa, LLC owns the UFC and Strikeforce, as well as the rights to Pride FC, WEC, and WFA. Those last three are now defunct. Dana White is UFC President and a 9% shareholder in Zuffa. Lorenzo and Frank Fertitta own 40.5% each, with Flash Entertainment, owned by the government of Abu Dhabi, owns the remaining 10%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuffa

Bellator FC's CEO is Bjorn Rebney; it's parent company is Viacom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellator_Fighting_Championships

Sponsors aren't too hard to figure out. Just look at the gear the fighters wear and the ads that play during broadcasts, as well as the labels around the fighting area: Toyo Tires, Everlast, TapouT, Affliction, Burger King, [insert hot new movie here], the USMC, Budwiser, Harley Davidson, etc.

And I fail to see what all of this has to do with whether or not you get a shirt with your purchase of a workout program.

I can tell you this: nobody listed above has ever paid me anything. Or any of my immediate friends.

What does the MA community know about MMA? As much as they want. The information's out there. And don't mistake the business side of MMA for the practice of MMA.

 

OK...OK....maybe I'm just not coming across very clearly. I thought Simon was being cute about it. Hold on a sec and let me see if I can make this a little clearer.

In the MA community there are certain terms that are used and usaually people in the community can explain those terms, identify big names and explain the rudimentary guidelines to practicing some art. Nothing very detailed but the information can be had. After all how many times does someone come on this Forum and ask about a MA and gets an answer....sometimes even being innundated with detail.

In like manner when I follow another sport I get some general idea of the rules, leading players, sponsors and so forth.

My point is that as a person who is exposed to various MMA advocates here on this Forum, I realize that most of what I know about MMA is that its has some pretty passionate trainees and thats about it.

This is more of the direction I was going in. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

At the risk of hijacking the thread (or maybe another needs to be started), what do you want to know about it?

 

IMHE to date, only general information is available about MMA activities.

For instance, MMA is invoked in the programs I mentioned starting this thread. Both infomercials indicated that what was happening in programs was used by or appropriate for MMA. Characteristically these comments were oblique to say the most, and if I said "references made to" it would need to be with a capital "R". For me this is about all that ever happens when it comes to MMA. Someone makes a claim. Someone asserts a position. If we were talking about, say, the Chicago White Sox, fans would know the managers, players, the farm team and so forth. We have been exposed to MMA for a few years and I just now find out that TAPOUT is a brand name for clothing.

I think what I am making a case for is more substanitive reports about the MMA. How is it funded? How are fighters selected for competition? What is the compensation scale? What about Liabilities? Maybe people on the INSIDE know this stuff, but speaking as an outsider, I don't. And when I ask a question it seems that the responses are equally obtuse, such as "well if you want to know about MMA just go join a gym." Sorry, but thats not an answer. Is any of this getting through?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Sorry, Simon; its hard to be more specific when working to talk about what is NOT coming across. When I think back to the various times when MMA comes up on a thread its almost always part and parcel of some put-down of another practice. OK, fine. But now tell me what MMA IS. It never seems to happen. Over the years I have heard MMA is better than Aikido, Karate, Judo, etc etc etc. To the best of my recollection noone ever talks about what it IS and how it works. Better?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

It sounds to me as if Bruce is looking for a primer of sorts, that will help him sort out the inner machinations of MMA. A "how-to" quick reference. Sort of like a racing handicap sheet for Horse Racing which gives the horse's last few results, its stable, its odds-to-win and a bit of other stuff. I may be wrong, and if I am, I apologize.

To me the details behind players and sponsors are kind of unnecessary unless you plan to become a competitive MMA practitioner. To use your example. I live in chicago and I can't tell you who plays for the white sox OR cubs because I'd rather get shot in the face than watch baseball, lol. Even sports like football, for which I have a minute interest, leave me confounded if I try to tell you who plays for who or even how many teams there are now. I'm not a fan. Yet, there are books galore that will allow me, a newb, to learn the finer points of football, its players and the reasons they play (ie superbowl, etc).

About the only sport I call myself a fan of, to any degree, is strong man and yet I can tell you only a handful of competitors. With BBing I can tell you prizes but thats only because I was elbows deep in the world of it all so its hard NOT to know that. Yet again, there are sources I can utilize that break it down for me so that, as a laymen, I can at least come to some understanding of how it all works.

Theres a book called Mixed Martial Arts for Dummies (not an insult in any way so please dont take it as one), which may very well answer the vast majority of your questions. I can't say for sure as I've never read it. But if a primer is what you're after, then for my money, that's be the place to start.

 

Well, what it "IS" in essence is a submission inspired conglomeration of techniques borrowed from various TMAs and combined into a single style. It would also depend greatly on various teachers. Some teachers have BJJ as a base with other arts thrown in as needed to round out the tools. Some have judo, some MT...

The art isn't better than any other, the PRACTITIONER may be better than another, but the arts are all equal. They all do what they were designed to do well enough to exist today.

Check out that book I recommended. It might be exactly what you need.

 

is this thread serious?

 

... mmmmyeah... pretty much...

 

Thanks, Mikey.... I guess thats about as close to information as I am going to get.

and "yes", Icefield...this thread IS serious. The simple fact is, my man, that I have grown pretty tired of the huge number of vapid and insipid threads on this Forum and I believe that just maybe SOMEONE needs to make a case for exchanging information instead of quips.

I started a thread b/c I heard a product touted and a reference made to a connection with MMA. So I asked a question and got some answers. But those answers seemed to remind me of just how few informative threads I have seen about MMA on this forum compared to the number of times the subject gets injected into various threads. I don't think its too much to ask for more substanitive responses.

Maybe I've been remiss.....but I'm sure I can fix that.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Bruce, to me, MMA is just the johnny-come-lately version of Hapkido. In HKD we incorporate techniques from boxing, judo, etc, to form a complete and unified singular "art" and so, too, does MMA. They have taken bits and pieces and combined them into a multifaceted art.

I think what separates MMA from TMAs or HKD is the attitude and the emphasis on ground related submission. I can't speak for all schools out there but at mine we spend more time on standing technique. We work on ground work but its not the lions share of what we learn. In MMA, ground work is a HUGE part.

I tend to see a lot of non-linear punching in MMA-style fights. MT style low kicks, knees and eblows, and then a great deal of BJJ on the ground. I see very little more than a boxing style of defense "duck and cover", if you will. Foot work is more of a shuffling boxing style than a deliberate style more akin to TMAs.

Mind you, all of this is simply my take from watching and reading. I'm sure someone on here will show up and type hard at me for missing the delicate intricacies of the arm bar or the lunging jab and I will be rightfully chastised and hang my head in sorrow.

I think the biggest difference I've noticed between HKD and MMA is the aggression. In TMAs as long as I've practiced the object has been to AVOID fighting at ALL REASONABLE COSTS but in MMA it seems the more aggressive you are the better. The mindset being a great offense is the best defense I suppose. So, its an attitude difference I guess.

 

Alright, let me take a crack at it-

MMA is a training and competitive format. Practitioners train in two or more independent systems (commonly Muay Thai, Brazilian Jiujitsu, Western boxing, and Western wrestling) in order to adapt to that format. Striking and grappling are both utilized. Different gyms may emphasize different aspects, depending on the strengths of their founders/instructors (Hayastan is essentially no-gi Judo with limited striking, American Top Team have great BJJ and boxing coaches, Golden Glory combines Dutch kickboxing with Japanese submission wrestling, etc) but both elements are necessary.

MMA is NOT a codified style with a single lineage, which leads me to agree with people who say it is not, itself, a "martial art". However, a number of systems, including Satoru Sayama's Shooto, Erik Paulson's Combat Submission Wrestling, and Greg Jackson's Gaidojitsu might be called "MMA styles" because they were designed specifically for this format.

Modern MMA has two "parent" sources- the Vale Tudo competitions of Brazil, and the shoot-style professional wrestling of Japan.

Vale Tudo ("anything goes" in Portuguese) originated, by my understanding, during the 1950's, when the Gracie family challenged people from other martial arts systems to fights. They had many rivalries during these early days, including practitioners of Capoeira, of Luta Livre (a Brazilian grappling system resembling Catch-as-Catch-Can wrestling), an rogue students from their own academies. The rules during this time were scant, and matches were fought bare-knuckle. I don't believe they included time limits. In 1993, they revived the concept in the US, creating the first Ultimate Fighting Championship event. Unlike the early Vale Tudo matches, the early UFC's were single-elemination tournaments, instead of one-off challenge matches.

In Japan, professional wrestlers looking for more authentic-looking styles brought over the likes of Lou Thesz and Karl Gotch, professional wrestlers who had a reputation as "shooters", or performers who had legitimate takedown, pinning, and submission skills they could rely on, should they need them. Under their influence, a style of pro wrestling known as "shoot style" evolved. It emphasizes legitimate strikes, throws, and holds. In the early days of this style (mid-1980's-ish), the matches were still "works", or events with pre-arranged outcomes, but by the early 1990's, several younger performers had formed their own organizations based around real competition... though it should be noted that worked matches were still used from time to time to build up performers. Though the earliest such organization was Shooto, which combined kickboxing and submission wrestling, the first one to really take off was Pancrase, where fighters like Bas Rutten and Ken and Frank Shamrock got their start.

In the beginning, there were several different variations of the rules- Pancrase discouraged ground-and-pound, banned close-fist strikes to the head, and required the participants to wear padded boots, while the early UFC's only banned biting and eye gouging- but as time went on, the rules governing events became more standardized. In the US, New Jersey approved of what would become known as the "Unified Rules of MMA" in 2001, I think, and they were quickly adopted by other states seeking to regulate MMA. Since the UFC was based in the US, and became the largest and most popular MMA promotion in the world in 2006, many other promotions across the world started to mirror the Unified Rules for their own rules. While it has not caught on everywhere, by and large, when someone is training for an MMA event these days, they do it with the Unified Rules in mind.

Imporant aspects of the Unified Rules: no biting, no eye gouging, no groin strikes, no headbutts, no strikes to the spine or back of the head, no kicks, stomps, or knee strikes to the head of a "downed" opponent (fighter touching the ground with anything other than the soles of the feet), no small joint manipulations (twisting of the individual fingers or toes), no pinching or twisting the skin, no striking vertically downward with the elbow (a stupid, stupid rule that, by my understanding, MMA proponents are trying to get removed). There is also a standard gear: shorts for the men, shorts and rash guard or sports bra for women. Protective gear for competitions includes a mouthpiece, 4oz. fingerless gloves, and a cup for the men.

Given the open format, MMA fighters can come from a variety of backgrounds. Lyoto Machida's base is Shotokan-based karate, Brazilian Jiujitsu, and Sumo wrestling, with some Muay Thai and Japanese submission wrestling sprinkled in. Anderson Silva began training in Taekwondo, but has also trained extensively in Muay Thai and Brazilian Jiujitsu, and has training in Hapkido and Capoeira. Georges St-Pierre began in Kyokushin karate, but he's also a BJJ black belt, trains with the Canadian Olympic wrestling team, and has studied Muay Thai and boxing. Jon Jones started off in Western wrestling, but picked up parts of Judo and Muay Thai along the way. Frankie Edgar started off in Western wrestling, but has developed a solid boxing game, and trains BJJ with Gracie black belt Ricardo Almeida.

NONE of these guys fight the same way. I mean, generalizations can be made, like the fact that Machida and Silva are both counter-strikers, but the nuances are much different. So Lyoto Machida's MMA is not the same as Georges St-Pierre's MMA, which in turn is not the same as Jon Jones's MMA. Within the same format, they have developed widely different fighting styles based on their own personal skills and attributes. I think you find this in martial arts everywhere- the more thickly-built karateka I work with prefer low stances and punches, as opposed to the lighter-built ones, who prefer fast footwork and kicking- but I think it's more pronounced in MMA because of the breadth of technique availible.

What MMA is NOT:

-a codified fighting style/martial art with a definitive lineage

-a sport with a single, recognized governing body

-a single interconnected league

-a single set of rules, although as noted, that's changing

-a purely competitive format, where one is expected to compete

I don't personally think I've ever called MMA "better" than [X martial art]. Since MMA is not itself a martial art, it is not in competition with other martial arts, especially considering that by its nature, training in disparate martial arts are necessary for a good performance in MMA. But as a format, it allows for a wide variety of techniques to be trained with hard contact. I prefer that format to many others I've been exposed to. In karate, I could only do karate, in BJJ I could only do BJJ, in Wing Chun I could only do Wing Chun... but in MMA, I could do all of it. That's what I find so appealing about it, and why I recommend the format to a lot of folks. It's a great proving ground, providing a combination of freedom of technique/strategy, a realistic amount of countact, but enough safety precautions to make sure nobody loses an eye.

 

Suggested reading (online):

A look at the early history of MMA. Check out the future instalments at the end of the article. Also note that many of the fights, once found online, have been taken down, unfortunately:
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2007/8/6/12458/62033

The technical breakdown section of that same website:
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/section/technique

A look at Shooto, the oldest MMA organization:
http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/1/A-Blood-Called-Shooto-17377

A brief history of the UFC through 2008ish:
http://www.completemartialarts.com/whoswho/ufc/ufchistory.htm

Website focused on the business side of MMA:
http://mmapayout.com/

Non-web sources: I recommend Clyde Gentry's "No Holds Barred" and Jonathan Snowden's "MMA Encyclopedia".

And of course, there's me and the other guys on here who know a thing or two about MMA. Ask direct questions, get direct answers.

 

yeah, thats what I meant...

 

It is an attitude difference in that the attitude is show me what works it works under a pressure situation where there are very limited rules and your opponent is trying to really hurt you. And since it’s a sports rule set which kinds of assums both parties are going to fight, there is little point taking what you see as the TMA route of avoiding fighting at all costs. Personally coming from a CLF and bakmei background alongside MMA I see traditional arts as just as aggressive and destructive as MMA.

Arts have to be modified in order to work under that pressure situation: For example boxing bobbing and weaving can open you up to knees to the head and front head lock attacks, with 4oz gloves punches that would never work in Boxing, such as wide hooks, angled overhands etc slip through very easily and come out of nowhere so slipping etc is hard to do, so you see more covering up and shielding as that is what works in that environment. You see less use of the jab and less combinations thrown because the fear of the takedown means every punch must count and the fact that there is no standing 8 count and no three knockdown rule means trading punches with your opponent is silly if you get caught the ref doesn’t step in, the fights over and you have to adjust accordingly .
Footwork wise you see boxing and thai style quick short movements because taking longer stances or rooting to the spot gets you put on your backside fast, you see low kicks because they work, high kicks are lower percentage and again put you down quickly, you see thai elbows and knees and because the clinch happens fast in real fights and dominating that range is crucial to winning, and that’s what Thai does very well when combined with wrestling tie ups and takedowns
Really what you see in MMA is what has been shown to work in a limited rules event over a few decades of competition