Would you label MMA its own martial art?

[baronbvp]

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. Boxing is a martial art. So is fencing. So is modern-day gunfighting trained by the pros. Those don't necessarily have the spiritual or philosophical aspects of a "true" martial art.

Would you agree?

How can Muay Thai be a martial art, and BJJ a martial art, but not a MT/BJJ hybrid used in MMA? I think that is exactly what Lee was trying to do: find what is most effective, discard the rest. He hated limitation, I'll give you that. But IMO, a combat-effective fighting style, trained and leaned to the level of an art, is its own animal.

My JKD school trains much more than MT and BJJ, and they don't use the term MMA, but it is in there. My instructor isn't focused on training ring fighters, but one could certainly do that with this training if they were so motivated.

[bushido_man96]

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. Boxing is a martial art. So is fencing. So is modern-day gunfighting trained by the pros. Those don't necessarily have the spiritual or philosophical aspects of a "true" martial art.

Would you agree?

I would agree, Baron. I think that all of those that you discussed would fall under the term "Martial Arts." Although most of us think of fighting with the fists, feet, and traditional weapons, as opposed to guns. However, I think today's military falls under the realm of Martial Arts as well.

[baronbvp]

True, Bushido Man. There are a lot of great posts in here with some very well thought out points. I'm glad to see so many have pondered the question.

In my opinion, the revolution in MMA will inspire the organizations, teachers, and practitioners of other arts reevaluate and update to stay relevant and effective. For example, I hope to see the return of karate's grappling like in Ian Abernethy's books.

[bushido_man96]

There are a lot of good points here. It is fun to be able to listen to what everyone views as their own Martial Arts definition. My upcoming article will address as well. There's lots of good information here that I could have used in it as well.

It is great that we can all discuss this with each other. Imagine if we all could get together around a table, sit back and ramble on about this, and just let the pitchers keep coming. Wouldn't it be a great time? However, we would probably drive our wives crazy!

[baronbvp]

It is great that we can all discuss this with each other. Imagine if we all could get together around a table, sit back and ramble on about this, and just let the pitchers keep coming. Wouldn't it be a great time? However, we would probably drive our wives crazy!

Now you're talking my language, Bushido Man! One of the funniest times I ever spent was with some other dudes, trying to demo to each other what we thought was effective. We'd had many beers and ended up laughing and saying a lot of, "well, what I was TRYING to show you was..."

I think these conversations are very fruitful. I'd love to hear more thoughts people have.

[bushido_man96]

I agree, Baron. Very fruitful indeed. I have a brother who is very talented when it comes to the MA, and fighting in general. However, he is not highly motivated, and I want to get him back into it.

[James Bullock]

There most definitely is some great conversations within these boards. Very fruitful indeed...

I am great full that I came across these forums. Very much so.

[ninjer]

MMA is often just used to explain the ruleset to which people will be fighting- it does not tell you what kind of fighter someone will be.

If you call yourself a boxer, then you're going to be a puncher. A jiu jitsu fighter is going to be using chokeholds, and a TKD fighter is going to be using kicks. Labeling someone a "MMA" fighter really doesnt help decide what style of fighter they are.

Example: you can take any one person, trained in one, many, or no martial arts. Throw that person in the ring and they become a MMA fighter even though they study no martial arts.

[bushido_man96]

You make a good point, ninjer. In the end, you could just make the arguement that there are no styles, only fighters.

[baronbvp]

MMA is often just used to explain the ruleset to which people will be fighting- it does not tell you what kind of fighter someone will be.

If you call yourself a boxer, then you're going to be a puncher. A jiu jitsu fighter is going to be using chokeholds, and a TKD fighter is going to be using kicks. Labeling someone a "MMA" fighter really doesnt help decide what style of fighter they are.

Example: you can take any one person, trained in one, many, or no martial arts. Throw that person in the ring and they become a MMA fighter even though they study no martial arts.

I agree that MMA is the rule set. But today's MMA guys, the younger ones, often train exclusively for that environment. The example you give also works for street brawlers. They don't just take "anyone" in the ring. You have to work your way through the lower levels of MMA before being accepted to fight in Pride, K1, or UFC. You wear MMA gear for punching and grappling.

I think the closest analogy is boxing. If you call boxing a martial art - and a lot of people didn't used to because it was western, used no feet or weapons, etc - then MMA fighting is similar.

The real discussion should perhaps revolve around definitions of martial art, martial sport, fighting style, martial artists versus martial athletes, and so on. Ultimately, IMO, when someone says they're an MMA guy or their style is MMA, it puts a certain understanding in our minds about what martial art they practice or train - the newest one.